Morons of the Internet: Everyday Feminism (17/04/17)

This is the segment where I scour my favourite forums around the internet and find some particularly interesting articles about current affairs told in the words of my favourite human beings.

In this edition we once again return to the world of shit articles that is Everyday Feminism. Once again these overlords of bollocks gone through their list of things they can possibly claim are racist or discriminatory and have decided that outdoor recreation is plagued by white supremacy and the patriarchy. Presumably this article will be followed up with why blades of grass are discriminatory, and why the shades of beige on the Dulux colour chart are racist. Anyway, let's go through each one of their moronic points.

Do you know what? I'm almost in agreement with Everyday Feminism. Outdoor recreation is largely not free, although what is in life, especially if you want to take that thing up as a hobby. However where I and this stupid website start to differ is how we approach this conundrum. Everyday Feminism simply whinge and bitch about anyone who can get outdoors easily in the most childish way possible, whereas I would prefer to bother doing an actual evaluation to try and decipher why there is a vast inequality in the visitors of National Parks. Spoiler alert: It's not racism.

I don't know anyone who assumes that the great outdoors is free, especially in the context of this argument. This is literally just some woman applying her own subjective viewpoints to a national issue. I also just love the assumption that because something seems free it should therefore be a universal right. The feeling of misery for example is free; should that also be a universal right? With the growing urbanisation occurring in countries around the world of course finding a secluded spot in the wilds is going to be difficult for some; that's just a harsh reality of life, and will never be an issue that's solved. The facts are that the majority of Americans in rural areas are white, so obviously you would expect white people to be visiting attractions in rural areas in greater frequencies. Unless you have any real evidence we can conclusively say there's no proof that racist attitudes are at fault here, no matter how hard you try and sell that narrative. People shouldn't be forced into National Parks against their will to even out the race based statistics. It's such a trivial allegation of racism and privilege. It would be a bit like me complaining that I can't have as much fun in the sun as someone from Spain. Where's my fucking article? What this argument boils down to is some idiot claiming racism exists in a meaningless issue despite the fact there is no strong evidence to support her arguments, and she's never even witnessed this occurring, but instead decides it must exist because it follows her narrative. Peak 'Everyday Feminism'. Unfortunately for the reader the pathetic reasoning doesn't stop here, and neither does her constant need to desperately force racial issues into everything. And where better to begin whining than a little lecture on privilege.

Again, why should minorities be forcefully included in matters surrounding National Parks? Citizens shouldn't be forced to visit certain attractions for the sake of unity; this isn't North Korea. Surely this complex issue couldn't possibly be caused by anything other than race. Why for example would it not be caused by local demographics, base reluctances that this author blindly dismisses, cultural differences, or simply personal tastes? Oh right, I forgot that every fucking idiot at Everyday Feminism doesn't try and solve or attempt to analyse issues in an objective way, but instead create new ones and pass on the blame to whoever their narrative dictates they must. There is always going to be members of society with more money than others. Just because a higher proportion of white people have more money and are therefore more likely to visit National Parks does not give you an excuse to demonise them.

When you actually address this line of argument that welfare issues are causing a lack of diversity it becomes blatantly obvious that this is a wild conclusion that seems unlikely to be true considering only a small minority of the American population are in poverty. I'm a student and I can still afford to go to a National Park. You certainly don't need to take out a mortgage to enjoy outdoor activities, so please tell me how this point relates to a survey of people who merely attended a National Park. And when has anyone ever been discouraged from going outside? I mean that's fair for ginger people likely to catch the sun, Vampires, or people with bubonic plague, but just because no-one is bending over backwards to get minorities into National Parks doesn't mean there's some worldwide conspiracy theory to keep people of colour indoors. Then to top it all off this person states that discouraging people from playing outside would 'possibly' stop budding conservationists. As a conservationist myself I can inform you my position has very little to do with my ability to go camping. How about we start making arguments based on evidence rather than irrelevant rambling?

As a Brit I can happily agree that elitism and the countryside go hand in hand, however that doesn't stop me from taking a walk off the beaten track. I don't know if this is the same in America, but here in Britain a huge variety of people from different economic backgrounds visit National Parks. The fact of the matter is that for outdoor activities you need absolutely fuck all. All you need to do is haul your ass over to a natural wilderness, so what this elitism has to do with the lack of diversity in outdoor recreation is beyond me. Yes, there is a huge consumer market for outdoor activities, as there is for firearms in America, yet minorities have had no trouble in obtaining them. I still don't know what the argument is here. Is this person arguing that camping is too expensive? A lot of things are expensive, but that doesn't mean you're entitled to them; welcome to the real fucking world. It's becoming quite clear that outdoor activities and racism simply aren't the issue Everyday Feminism is making them out to be. And yet the arguments keep getting more ridiculous.

Are you fucking serious? You're now complaining about fitness culture. How dare the majority of people want to live healthy lifestyles. You have to believe that even if cancer was cured Everyday Feminism would still find a way to whinge about it in the most pitiful way possible. But this argument is just going back to consumerism again. Maybe if you actually comprehend what happens in the real world you might be shocked to hear that when products are not in demand there's less of them. Funnily enough most grotesquely obese people are not big on cycling, hence why there's not a lot on the market. This is just fundamental supply and demand economics, and not the fault of some made up culture. But my bigger issue is why the fuck you need sportswear for camping? Sportswear is designed to maintain optimal performance when the body is pushed to the limit, which is really useful if you're camping during winter time in Norway. Funnily enough most activities are not considered free if you decide to buy unnecessary shit. Again, stop pushing agendas into arguments where they don't belong.

Here you hit the nail on the head, yet you still can't connect the dots that location may be the key to why minorities don't visit National Parks, because of course racism just has to be the answer. How naive can you possibly get? The statistics you source on this article actually add up to around 22% of coloured individuals being less likely to have recreation facilities and 20% of visitors to National Parks being people of colour. You really think a 2% discrepancy is significant? But blindly adding statistics irrespective of context is not the only issue, no there's also some historical oppression hierarchies being forced into issues that aren't even remotely historical. This author can source shitty Everyday Feminism articles all they want, but the facts are that the central ideas of preservation were formulated from a predominantly white perspective considering it was white people who pioneered the idea of conservation ethics. However to simply state that this is still the case would be incredibly misleading, and doesn't accurately represent the complex conflict of ethics in conservation that have rapidly changed since they were originally drawn out. National Parks are centres for natural beauty. They have fuck all to do with where indigenous populations are located in modern times, and what you're describing is simply irrelevant to the idea of why camping isn't free. It's been centuries since indigenous people have roamed the lands of wild America, and since that time the subject of conservation biology has radically changed. Something of course you can't comprehend because every issue is about fucking race. Tell me this: If National Parks had never existed do you think this exploitation you describe would be cured? And when you're done bullshiting your way through that one explain what this has got to do with the original argument.

Oh Boo-fucking-hoo. How about instead of childishly whinging become the change you want to see and get off your fat ass. If not seeing others like you doing an activity prevents you from doing it then how much did you really want to do it in the first place? You can pass the blame to families all you want, but honestly why does that have anything to do with your laziness? Firstly I know of many families who don't want their kids playing in the great outdoors for security reasons, and not at all because of racial reasons. The author herself even goes on to explain that it was the location being the issue, which again puts more evidence towards my explanation of simple demographic distribution being the reason. It's certainly not families stopping their children from going outside. You are aware that once you pass a certain age you can have fun without your parents permission? The rest is just more horseshit. I honestly can't imagine why society doesn't socialise women to be physically strong like men. I mean there is absolutely no biological reason why people would associate men as the stronger sex. So yeah, I agree, fucking toxic. I mean you don't explain why they're toxic, but surely just calling something 'toxic' will improve your argument no end.

Just when you thought they were running out of buzzwords to shoehorn into their article good old rape culture makes an appearance despite being entirely irrelevant. I could twist their words here and claim that they think all firefighters and lumberjacks are racist considering that's what they're implying, but instead I'll just simply state that they have absolutely zero evidence to accuse these honest occupations of having the crime of rape embedded in their profession. How have we got to a day and age where whiny online fuckwads have the audacity to start criticising firefighters? The sources provided are a simple survey of one region that's evidently biased, never mentions rape, suspiciously doesn't include a methodology, and never even explores whether there's any truth behind their allegations. Even if you ignore the shit source I still have to ask what rape culture in firefighters has to do with minorities visiting National Parks? You know you can go camping without the National Parks using your stay as an excuse to seize you for indentured service in the fire brigade? The other source is an article from the notoriously unbiased Huffington Post, and essentially comprises of a series of anecdotal interviews. How the fuck all this evidence can be used to support the idea of universal rape culture is mindblowing, especially considering this allegedly proves discrimination in outdoor activities. Surprisingly it doesn't.

The article concludes by saying that ethnic minorities should be celebrated in the great outdoors. No, fuck off. I don't give a fuck how many minorities go on a tour of the woods, and neither does any normal person for that matter. Why the fuck should I care about someone else having a selfish experience? The author still hasn't explained why camping being expensive is actually an issue, and really this article is a thinly veiled attempt to demonise anyone who this moronic website have an agenda against. The final thought is that everyone should enjoy the privilege of camping, which isn't at all an oxymoron, nor is it an entirely trivial issue. I'm starting to think Everyday Feminism has a universal template of shit filled with their usual buzzwords. They leave a few gaps to make anything relevant or topical, which is about all their pea brained employees can smear on to the page with the same level of critical thinking as a walrus. I don't even know why I bothered reading this to be honest, it's just fucking shit.