Gender and Socialisation Messages in Zoos

On this blog I must have displayed examples of gender studies trying to shit on everything I love. Well now it's the turn of this zoology student to come face to face with a paper that criticises zoos from a gender based perspective. Even the title alone is enough to royally trigger me, but just wait till you see the findings of these prestigious academics. You really have to wonder if the sole purpose of gender studies is to claim everything I love in this world is sexist.
________________________________________________________________
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0190272516656620?etoc=
________________________________________________________________

Oh no, we're only a few lines in and already we're inundated with sweeping statements backed up with zero evidence. I must say I'm completely shocked to find this sort of poor argument in a social studies paper. In case you haven't worked it out yet this paper is attempting to explain how gender stereotypes manifest themselves in society through the use of observed behaviour in zoological parks. The central theme here is that gender cannot be explained through natural processes, and bigoted parents use animals displayed in zoos to indoctrinate children into thinking patriarchal gender norms are universal. I just can't imagine why gender would be associated with biological sex. Is it possibly to do with the vast majority of the world's population identifying as the biological sex they were born with. Jesus that's an alarming level of correlation isn't it. It's almost like these hegemonic ideas of masculinity and femininity are based off of biology. But don't trouble yourself by supplying biological sources to discuss this gender association nonsense, because I'm sure using sociological studies is far more reliable when referring to anatomical sex differences.

We can easily highlight the flaws in using sociology to understand biological sex differences. Take the Carrigan, Connell and Lee study sourced by this paper. Their paper is complete nonsense and has no bearing in modern science. After all the paper is from 1985, but even scientists at that time were aware that clear cut categories between sexes are universally found in sexually reproducing organisms. Sexual dimorphism isn't precautionary, and in fact aids in describing these clear cut differences that these sociological studies blatantly ignore. You can claim human sociality transcends biological determinism, but what is human society if not a product of biology in the first place? You can't cheat the system of nature when you're playing by its very rules. These models of masculinity and femininity are based in nature, and are not a facade, representing the natural division between the sexes. I'm sorry if these people don't agree with that idea, but it's the fucking truth, and no amount of denying biology is going to change that.

What these researchers don't clock on to is the idea that these differing attitudes to gender exist for a reason. It's not some institutionalised conspiracy that aims to suppress certain characteristics, but rather a reflection of human biology. Furthermore there is no evidence presented that socialising children to standard gender norms is actually damaging. You can easily socialise a child to behave in the way these virtuous souls would want, but why would this be beneficial over traditional gender norms? I would argue suppressing the truth from these kids is far more harmful than merely offending a few gender studies professors.

You can argue all you want that socialisation messages are more pronounced in zoos, but you have no fucking evidence that this is in any way true, which is quite a major flaw in your study. Actually 'zoos' plural is an overstatement, considering this survey took place at ONE zoo. How fucking unreliable is your conclusion going to be if your trying to represent the data from one institution as a global generalisation? There's so many critical fucking variables you can't control here. You can't identify differences in culture, which is a fucking huge variable in this study. You can't control for the changes in these nature inspired environments, which again is a fucking huge element of your study. And of course being as this is such a pitifully small study you can't control for anomalous results. Quite honestly this hopeless study has zero chance of producing anything meaningful thanks to your idiotic methods. Still, I'm sure you can hide these humongous flaws with pages of tedious bullshit.

Somehow they did manage to draw up some conclusions, but as you would expect they're not exactly profound. The paper concludes with three big generalisations, which I'm sure accurately portrays the range of behaviours sampled by their pitiful methods. It's not as if these three scenarios are any good either. It's not exactly revolutionary to declare that humans anthropomorphise animals. However this fact doesn't automatically validate the next two conclusions, which all revolve around the idea that adults are purposely forcing gender roles to be ruthlessly impounded on children when observing animals. Anthropomorphism and forcing gender roles on children are two separate things entirely, and one cannot be used to prove the existence of the other. This is circular reasoning at its very worst.

I find it incredibly hard to believe that there was such a profound distinction between the parenting of different genders. I'm not denying that parents tend to differ their attitudes towards different genders, but the way this study makes it sound is as if all girls are universally oppressed by the behaviour of their parents. In my personal opinion I feel these individuals are demonising common sense in favour of promoting ideological rhetoric. In other words this is building up to be a shameful study. We still haven't even delved into the explanations of how zoos allegedly naturalise these gender differences.

This section of the paper presents the idea that the world of media reinforces stereotypes relating to animals, with these stereotypes being considered unanimously negative without qualification. It's here the study relates these supposed issues to zoological institutes, or institutes of patriarchal oppression as these researchers would have you believe. For some reason zoos are said to be significant because they're artificial simulations of the natural world, although I really don't understand how they can reflect the whole global biosphere. I'm also confused as to how the ecological relationship between differing organisms causes socialisation, as the only explanation this paper can give is that zoos give out 'symbolic power', which is something I would expect charlatans to say. Zoos house animals from all over the planet, often faithfully recreating their natural environment for both immersion and the benefit of the animal on display, but under no circumstances does this equate to an accurate representation of the global biosphere. Under this logic you could have just observed how people interact with pigeons in the street. You just wanted a day out at the zoo and had to come up with some excuse to get funding for your excursions.

I'm honestly intrigued by this mystical symbolic power that humans can draw on to reinforce gender stereotypes. I think they're just confusing witchcraft and wizardry with animals behaving naturally. It certainly seems there's this overarching tone condemning animals for daring to follow gender stereotypes, with their sexist powers allowing parents to oppress their kids. I thought it would be perfectly logical to assume that humans try and relate to the vastly different animals on display in zoos by giving them stereotypical personalities. I'm sorry that most parents don't come up with a story surrounding Timmy the transgender tortoise, but that doesn't mean these stereotypical characters are indoctrinating these children into becoming patriarchal monsters. Why is creating stereotypical characters a bad thing? More importantly how is this a behaviour that can be prevented? The majority of people who visit zoos aren't experts on sexual morphology or the cognitive output of these animals, such as yourselves, so why wouldn't parents try and relate to the exhibits by adhering to stereotypes? This isn't mythmaking, it's trying to relay educational information to children. You try giving one of your bullshit gender studies lectures to a child and they'll be bored solid, but show it a chimp that looks like daddy and you've made a memorable encounter.

I hate the tone this study takes that being an average parent is inherently evil. How dare you try and educate your children, or try and allow them to show some interest. No, instead you must forcefully digest this gender fluid bullshit, because that's going to be truly beneficial. The kid might grow up scientifically illiterate, but hey at least they won't be a transphobic pig. The study then goes on to explain why zoos exemplify these alleged issues, coming up with some questionable conclusions.

It says a lot about the intelligence of these researchers when they have to be trained in observing families. What do you have to learn? How to not look like a nonce? Honestly this methodology is fucking terrible. It's like the level of experimentation I would expect from a high school student, not an academic paper. Funnily enough this shit study produced some amazingly insightful findings. Any single comment any parent made in relation to the sex of the animal is instantly demonised as if it's some sort of curse word. If you dare to compare sex differences in humans to that of other animals you're instantly branded a vile sexist believing in false ideologies. To any individual not versed in zoology sexing animals without comparing to humans is a difficult task, so I think it's incredibly harsh to criticise these said adults for trying to educate their children in relation to terms they would understand. I'm someone whose studied sexual selection at a world leading institution, which doesn't sound arrogant at all, so it makes perfect sense to me that male peafowls exhibit brighter patterns than the opposite sex, but I would never try and deter someone from simplifying this advanced biology to their children. Peafowls actually follow a trend found in a vast number of species where the males tend to exhibit brighter colouration, although the individual mechanisms behind these ornamental features are still heavily debated. All you've brought to this debate is a huge pile of manure that aims to silence any serious biological enquiry. Male ornamentation has nothing to do with gender roles, so doesn't at all prove any rule relating to these gender stereotypes. Ignorance I can tolerate from children, but it's fucking insulting from so called academics.

These idiots expect any guest of a zoo to be instant experts, and before making a comment towards their child any parent must know everything about the sex of animals and their relatedness. I actually thought the observations made by guests were pretty good, considering that otters live in social groups formed around relatedness, and male gorillas are far larger than female gorillas. What you're proving here is that socialisation messages lead to accurate stereotypes forming. I find it insultingly hypocritical that a paper of this low quality has the audacity to criticise others for making assumptions when the only arguments they can produce are littered with them. I can assure you that these uneducated guests make far more accurate assumptions than these supposed academics. Maybe it would be beneficial to these researchers if they assigned nice little back stories to help them understand biological concepts, because it's clear they haven't grasped the purpose of zoological institutes or the role of sex in animals.

Later on these morons criticise an innocent joke, a mother making an accurate comparison between her parenting and that of an orangutan, and an innocent story. I get the impression these researchers haven't got their heads around the idea that people go to the zoo for fun, not a fucking gender studies lecture. That's not the only crime these transphobic adults have committed. Oh no, just look what other heinous crimes these astute researchers intelligently discovered.

Jesus Christ we need to ban all zoos. Not only are kids being indoctrinated, but animals are now being appropriated by these vile places. I doubt animals give a shit about being appropriated, and may have larger issues to care about, such as being globally massacred in levels never seen before in the history of the planet. Maybe if appropriating was such a big issue you could have at least bothered to find a source to back up these monstrous generalisations.

The only evidence presented in these segments is more harmless stories from caring parents. I just can't comprehend how a woman commenting on how she finds a bird attractive is transmitting gender norms. Maybe she likes the bird because it's fucking attractive, and has nothing to do with the fact she's also a woman. If anyone is guilty of stereotyping gender it's these researchers. Just because one woman said something in a random zoo doesn't mean its a global trend. I get that zoos are supposed to be this representation of a whole planet, but I get the feeling you only claim this so your results are given some false significance. At its foundations this study is purely supported through anecdotal evidence, which even for a social studies paper is fucking pathetic. 35 instances is a shockingly poor sample number to make this radical conclusion. That's also 35 instances over many surveyed hours, which indicates this behaviour is stochastic and not fucking ingrained. I get the feeling you're purposely manipulating the results by eliminating the context to try and artificially force significance into your meaningless survey. What still confuses me with this study is how they can conclude that gender is some complicated mess that doesn't follow a binary by literally collecting evidence that shows a dichotomy in attitudes towards animals. I'm sure these researchers would claim this is solely because of social manipulation, and not the more sensible conclusion that biological differences are at play.

Hang on, you're now providing anecdotal evidence that men aren't bound by toxic masculinity and an internal desire for violence, which is funny as I'm sure you claimed sensitivity was inherently feminine about a minute ago. That's not following these gender stereotypes that are, you know, the only weak foundation holding this argument in place. I'm still shocked that they can determine all this information with such a shockingly poor sample. Surely if only 17 men applauded strength then countless other men didn't. Why then wouldn't you accept the null hypothesis that all of this is completely trivial? Oh yes, the null hypothesis doesn't pander to your agenda.

In absence of any real statistical analysis we're repetitively subjected to these pointless anecdotes that don't serve to prove anything. They're just waffle that clogs up the study. However that story with the tiger is particularly amusing to read. The conclusion these idiots actually suggest is that the mother forced the child away from the scene to transmit gender norms onto the child, and not the idea that the child is reveling over a bird's carcass being torn to shreds. She's not transmitting stereotypes, she's being a fucking parent. All throughout this study I was waiting for the penny to drop and for these researchers to realise they're just being judgmental assholes. I can't imagine why all these parents would teach their children that gender differences are based in nature. How dare they teach these children factual information? I'd say adhering to stereotypes is nowhere near as bad as twisting this fucking narrative. Stop spurting out this weird conspiracy shit that you can't back up with evidence.

The next section is about the difference between disciplining boys and girls, which is apparently possible to determine within the confines of a fucking zoo. I honesty can't be assed to analyse it all because it's just the same rhetoric repeated over and over again, with some ridiculous generalisations thrown in for good measure. What a shame these academics haven't learnt the critical skill of making scientific papers succinct. Let's just move swiftly on to the 'discussion'.

Yes you read that correctly, animals interacting with their artificial environment literally naturalises gender ideologies. The word 'literally' there being misused in probably the most offensive way I can possibly imagine. Maybe if animals interacting with their environment causes gender norms then that would suggest these norms are natural, which is contrary to what's claimed in this study. The only evidence you have against this is from these three instances, which as I've already explained are completely meaningless.

The researchers do at least have the brainpower to identify that someone with any common sense might have an issue with the conclusions presented by this study, and they've countered this with yet more anecdotal evidence with no sources for backup. Unfortunately extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to be in any way valid, and whatever ethnographic observations you've found does not constitute as solid evidence in any way. What are ethnographic observations for that matter? My vote would be on some totally trivial and subjective.

The researchers decided that because some observed individuals went against the norm, which is completely expected as we're discussing human behaviour, biology cannot be used to explain what was observed and that we should believe in the power of socialisation instead. So in other words because some girls like violence and some boys like attractive and cute animals it's not conceivable that gender roles are determined by nature. We'll suddenly ignore the trends we've been banging on about constantly, because apparently biologically determined behaviour cannot possibly show any form of variation. I literally cannot see any flaws in this watertight conclusion. Just a stunning and insightful piece in every aspect, and we're not even finished. Fantastic.

Can't imagine why there's an appeal towards natural explanations of gender expression, and not the surrendering of logic to your alternative nonsense. Surprisingly it turns out that it's not biologists who can explain the role of biology in gender expression, but sociologists instead. How am I supposed to follow this logic when these said sociologists make scientifically illiterate points such as the one found in that 2007 Jackson and Rees study? Here's a direct quote from that equally shit study: 'We genuinely do not know whether human behaviour and culture are the products of evolutionary selective pressure, although we find it unlikely.' I'm sorry to say we absolutely do know whether behaviour is effected by selection pressures, as not only is behaviour heritable, but it's determined by biological systems comprised of genomes, and has a direct effect on the likelihood of reproduction. Are you seriously telling me that an inherent fear of tigers or lions is fucking socialised? You don't even need to be an evolutionary biology professor to work this one out, and all you need to do is observe how human behaviour has diverged from other apes. If you find a biological explanation unlikely then you're a science denier, it's that straight forward. It baffles me that these sociologists count complete bullshit as credible evidence.

Nature is not a social construct full stop. Human's are merely a component of nature, and must abide by its principles. That's why nature has this collective meaning, and not whatever horseshit you lot are proclaiming. This study has provided nothing to support the idea that zoos are this magical wonderland that hold the keys to understanding gender norms, simply because they artificially blur boundaries between nature and urban life. Of course urban life is also part of nature, but in all honesty that's the least of the shortcomings displayed here. The study even admits to having little evidence that these transmitted gender norms are of any significance, although really that sentence should incorporate the term 'zero evidence'. Quite frankly that whole paragraph could just be rephrased as 'we're fucking shit and should stop wasting academic funding on trips to the zoo.' The final line essentially amounts to 'we shouldn't be making generalisations like we have been throughout the whole study because we can't even find significance in individual scenarios.'

Eleven pages of complete shit and we finally arrive at some sort of conclusion. It's not a conclusion at all actually and strangely doesn't describe how this paper fits into the academic sphere, or how it puts their findings into any sort of context. I mean it doesn't actually fit into any academic sphere, but you would of thought they would bullshit their way out of that like they have for everything else. This paragraph however is more a biased literature review, which indicates very poor focus. What I cannot stand is this assumption that gendered behaviour is inherently the biggest evil on the planet. Please tell me what fucking harm these parents are doing by stereotyping animals they see to make them interesting to their children. There just isn't some global conspiracy where adults are trying to turn their children into clones, and there is certainly no fucking evidence that zoos have this sudden hypnotic effect on parents to become patriarchal scum. This is simply case studies of parents trying to teach their progeny, or at least try and allow their children to enjoy themselves.

I love the comment that the behaviour of children may be different in opera houses and libraries. No fucking shit. That doesn't take a fucking academic paper to work out. I think it's becoming clear that these researchers do not have kids, which makes sense, as who would want to procreate with a social scientist that comes out with shit like this? Maybe, and here's a fucking wild suggestion, zoos are a good place to observe adults discussing natural roles of sex because that's what's displayed in these animals. You can't make the argument that animals are in on this global conspiracy, as they have no concept of what gender is. And no, you absolutely cannot hold animals accountable for their natural sex roles.

Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse THIS PAPER WON AN AWARD. I imagine it's not a prestigious one if this pile of shit was anywhere close to winning, but it's still an indication that people think this pile of manure deserves credit. It doesn't deserve a shred of credit, and the author of this paper appears to be about twelve in that photo, which I suppose makes sense when she writes like a fucking twelve year old. This is a personal message to social scientists: Please stop promoting shit like this. Not only does it discredit your discipline, but it clogs up the sciences with ideological bullshit. Please quit it with the idea that gender has no basis in nature, and the idea that everyone who disagrees with this statement is an offensive bigot. I personally refuse to be called a transphobic liar by this idiotic study, and the quicker people call this kind of shit out as pseudoscience the better for academia.

North Korea: The Secret Socialist Paradise

I didn't realise the extent to which radical idiots like to revise history and current events towards their own ideologies. That wasn't until recently, when for some reason I found myself in a brief exchange at a party having to claim that North Korea is one of the most oppressive regimes on the planet, and that regime change would be a positive thing for its citizens. My opponent spouted all sorts of moronic nonsense, but I finally snapped and conceded defeat when they claimed that defectors from North Korea are a factual inaccuracy. I have no issue with someone having differing political opinions on a divisive issue, but to support this opposition with flat out lies is disgusting behaviour. Just so you're aware this individual went on to claim that the killer of Martin Luther King Jr., James Earl Ray, was offered to the Black Panther party instead of the US government by the Cuban dictatorship after his escape from prison, and that the US had funded the Khmer Rouge regime that decimated Cambodia. In reality James Earl Ray was captured three days after his escape in the state of Tennessee, which is famous for being nowhere near Cuba, and evidence that the US government funded a communist regime is patchy at best. It would simply be jumping to conclusions to insinuate that the US solicited this particular genocide. As you can see even some basic research can easily demonstrate the level of idiocy here, but let's take a closer examination at the arguments these revisionists use to support the brutal regime of modern day North Korea.

To begin to understand where these morons are coming from we need to understand that they are self proclaimed radical socialists, and that by defending North Korea they are defending one of the last socialist strongholds on the planet. Of course in turn they're also defending a totalitarian state with a democratic body comprised of pre-approved members known as the Supreme People's Assembly. This assembly, which is forbidden from initiating legislation, has surprisingly never been shown to have ever amended any bill put before them. Some idea of democracy. In reality this socialist paradise ironically resembles a feudal monarchy, with absolute power given to the ruling family. Citizens are even ranked according to how loyal they are to the government, with the most loyal citizens being granted a higher social status, in a process known delightfully as 'songbun'. Korean refugees claim this is a critical part of everyday life, yet the government and supportive socialists  claim each citizen is equal. The socialist support is clearly oblivious to these breaches of liberty, and there is even these hidden gems on the internet that read like a fucking propaganda piece funded by the North Korean government itself. I'll be returning to these sorts of pieces a number of times, so I'd recommend giving them a read. These are articles that glorify the actions of a brutal dictatorship through poor comparisons and a lack of perspective, which makes them a perfect tool to highlight the idiocy of this whole argument.

You may be wondering how a supposed monarchy persists in what is described as a socialist state. Well, that would be through mass indoctrination. A key method in this subordination is the nationwide surveillance of public communications by the government. Owning a foreign television or other method of communication is obviously prohibited, as then citizens would be unable to solely view the propaganda spewed by the government owned media outlets. North Korea is not surprisingly placed last on the Press Freedom Index thanks to the malicious control of information. The leaders of North Korea are seen as a cult of personality by the national populace, and this is reflected in their behaviour. In response to this behaviour observed after the death of Kim Jong-il one of the socialist blogs mentioned earlier contains the following line: 'It doesn’t make sense that any army could compel an entire nation with near unanimity to weep and publicly display grief in a public way.' Why not? If you create a cult of personality through isolation and relentless propaganda it's entirely possible to indoctrinate a whole population. We've seen mass levels of mourning from the deaths of Mao Zedong and Princess Diana, and psychological experiments have shown the effects of obedience towards authority figures, so why is this behaviour out the reach of an oppressive regime?

This video apparently shows perfectly normal behaviour. I understand grief can have huge consequences on the behaviour of individuals, but this is a whole fucking population exhibiting the same behaviour in response to a national tragedy. Why aren't alarm bells ringing in the heads of those that support this state?

A point made by my opponent was that despite my claim the borders of North Korea are not in fact closed, and that there are populations of North Korean migrants found outside of their homeland. Remember this person also refused to accept that thousands of defectors leave North Korea every year, whilst simultaneously citing double defectors as evidence that North Korea isn't the hellhole that Western nations perceive it as. Well here's the statistics on defectors, and here's the statistics on double defectors. Not only is defecting a real issue, but significantly less individuals double defect despite being treated like shit in South Korea. Funnily enough I've found no evidence of these supposed North Korean exclaves in foreign lands, and this idea is incredibly hard to believe considering the borders of North Korea are categorically closed, most notably along the DMZ, where any intruder is immediately shot. Traveling abroad is absolutely forbidden, so unless these exclaves are defectors they physically cannot exist. This fact can be easily demonstrated by looking at the range of ethnicities found within North Korea, or lack of I should say. To add to this there is evidence that double defection is supported by the North Korean government by brutally torturing the poor souls that decide to return. Tourism however is not banned, and my opponent stated that tourism in North Korea is actively encouraged, and people could visit any areas of the country they pleased. Funnily enough this isn't the case in the world's most secretive state, and any visitors will be under direct supervision at all times. As you can see the factual inaccuracies are piling up, but we're not even close to the pinnacle of bullshit this idiot will come up with.

This defector certainly does exist, and I find people denying this man's bravery and existence disgustingly ignorant.

The real conspiracy started when the claim was made that Western powers had used propaganda to create the false impression that the quality of life for Koreans was perfectly fine, and they were not living in poverty. Well, let's view the statistics: 28% of North Korean children are malnourished, with 4% seriously malnourished. The World Food Programme estimates that 70% of the country suffers from food insecurity. The WHO shows that North Korea has the 109th best life expectancy in the world, which is almost 100 places below the Southern part of the peninsula. This level of life expectancy is nowhere near being in the same category as a developing country, but it doesn't follow the logic that North Korea has a brilliant healthcare system, despite that system being universal. One of the supporting articles claimed that North Korea has maintained a high mortality rate, which is statistically untrue. They claimed the healthcare system was 'something which most other developing countries would envy'. This is certainly not praise, considering they're painting the picture that North Korea is a socialist utopia. I hope they're aware what a developing country is. The majority of developing countries don't even have running water, yet alone adequate healthcare systems. That's not to say North Korea doesn't perform below par in every aspect, and in fact they have a suspiciously perfect level of literacy, being the only country in the world to have achieved this amazing feat.

Unfortunately not all elements of life are as perfect as the North Korea education system, exemplified by the fact that the country has fuck all power infrastructure. The power supply is so bad you can visibly see the shocking effect from the satellite imagery below:

Shall we take a guess where the idyllic utopia of North Korea is located? Surely it can't be that section of map with barely any power infrastructure.

Lack of power is not the only area where North Korea suffers. Historically the country has been hit with mass levels of starvation, most notably in the mid 1990's. During this period it's estimated that around 300,000 people perished according to census data. Sporadic famine is not the brutal picture provided by the supportive sources, which instead make the proud claim that the GDP of North Korea was higher than that of South Korea until the fall of the Soviet Union; a very capitalist brag to make. This was a fact that the CIA even admitted, although isn't a reason to brag, since both nations were recovering from a fucking war, and the redistribution of their respective countries. After 1973 the GDP of North Korea was a third of its Southern rival, and has remained that way ever since. Not only are we dealing with factual inaccuracies, but supporters are now resorting to reductive historical arguments that in no way detail the modern ways of a drastically different nation.

We've now explored the everyday life of North Koreans, but how free are they are as a nation? I know this might come as a shock, but I would conclude they're anything but free. For starters their government controls the trade unions, leading to forced labour that includes children. If you want to practice a religion then you may as well commit suicide, because you'll end up being executed. The government did kindly build churches for practicing Christians, but only for foreigners visiting. If you want a baby with a foreign man then that baby will be forcibly aborted, and of course by having sex with a foreigner by traveling to another country illegally you may find yourself on the receiving end of a public execution. And if you dare exercise your right to free speech and criticize the government, you'll find yourself in a reeducation camp that are renowned for their brutality. The word 'liberty' it appears is not in the North Korean dictionary, but this is nothing compared to their blatant disregard of human rights.

Arguably the most heinous pile of bullshit spurted by these socialist idiots was the blatant denial of human rights violations in North Korea. According to the North Korean government there's fuck all wrong with their attitudes towards human rights, which is contrary to the wealth of evidence we have on this subject. Here are just a few of those examples supporters of the regime strategically ignore: To begin with prisoners who are trying to flee the country will often be executed on the spot, and the North Korean propaganda machine has even admitted to executing a member one of the leading figures in the country. That's the uncle of Kim Jong-un, not just some political prisoner. In reality that's nothing compared to what's happening within the penal system. Amnesty International reports that torture is routinely carried out in prisons, including on children, with the most common cause of death in these prison camps being starvation. The UN estimates there are between 80,000 to 120,000 of these prisoners living in these labour camps. Opponents of these facts claim that there is a lack of evidence that so called 'gulags' are operating within North Korea. This is simply untrue. Not only is there satellite imagery of these camps, but there is also the numerous testaments of former prisoners. The North Korean government itself even admitted that these camps exist, so what more fucking evidence do you need? One of the supportive pieces contained a segment with the following line: 'Central to the ISO’s anti-communism is a heavy reliance on bourgeois sources that have proven themselves unable to withstand the most basic materialist scrutiny.' Well sunshine, you better take a good look in the fucking mirror, because you later make a counterargument with one fucking source from a notorious socialist historian. Funny how the validity of a source changes based on your political agenda rather than the quality of the source itself. To be honest that's better than the other supportive piece that has a total of zero sources. What was that about not being able to withstand the most basic scrutiny? The source even makes the braggadocios that these prisons are used to reeducate those who commit petty crimes, which is like a line from an Anthony Burgess dystopia, but also funnily ignores the 'reeducation' that happens to those who commit serious crimes. You know, the ones that fall under the massive human rights violations that you're effectively supporting. The estimated figures of casualties by these 'gulags' is around 400,000, which is a startling statistic that cannot be ignored. Evidently the overwhelming evidence is clear cut that North Korea has a barbaric attitude towards its own civilians. 

Believing that North Korea is in any way a respectable place is worse than believing in some tinfoil hat conspiracy theory. What these radical socialists are doing is literally denying a genocide. If you're willing to bury your head in the sand and deny the brutal oppression of millions just to fit in with your ideology then you're one of the most sadistic pieces of shit I can imagine. It's all very well supporting socialist states, which based on the evidence it appears North Korea isn't anymore, but to then blindly ignore the crippling flaws of this regime is pure fucking ignorance at its very worst. One of the supportive sources outrageously concludes with the line 'despite its challenges and shortcomings, Democratic Korea is one of the last remaining countries where workers were able to control society collectively as a class'. That statement shows a complete lack of knowledge surrounding the composition of the North Korean government, and couldn't be any further from the truth. You have to be blind to the overwhelming evidence if you conclude that North Korea is in any way dictated by the working class, or that the existing power relations are acceptable despite the shortcomings being fucking genocide. The civilians of North Korea are just as much a puppet as you are for believing this ideological crap. Both of the pieces from radical socialists revolve around the argument of 'well the US is worse', which is a piss poor argument, and doesn't excuse nationwide oppression. It's not a competition to kill as many civilians as possible.

The argument at the party began in response to the comment that the film 'The Interview' was racist due to its support for regime change in North Korea. I don't quite know how creating a film with a clear political bias constitutes racism, but what's more bizarre is how this film is being demonised. Who's the real villian here? A comedic film that supports a particular political idea, or a person who's ignorantly denying countless human rights violations. Not sure there's much of a contest there. Christopher Hitchens quite brilliantly referred to the North Koreans as 'starving and stunted dwarves, living in the dark, kept in perpetual ignorance and fear, brainwashed into the hatred of others, regimented and coerced and inculcated with a death cult.' Clearly there's no socialist paradise to be found anywhere near the hellhole that is North Korea.

The Sexual Politics of Veggies

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.