Blame women
A San Francisco lawmaker introduced an ordinance that would make it illegal to make a fraudulent, racially-motivated 911 call in response to a number of recent incidents in which white people have called the police on Black people who weren’t doing anything wrong.
So far so good.
Supervisor Shamann Walton introduced the Caution Against Racially Exploitative Non-Emergencies, or CAREN Act, Tuesday, which will “make it illegal for people to contact law enforcement solely to discriminate on the basis of a person’s race, ethnicity, religious affiliation, gender, sexual orientation or gender identity.”
The CAREN Act. Geddit? Hawhaw. Not funny. Not cute.
Imagine if a white lawmaker came up with a SAMBO Act or some such shit. (Some probably have. Not funny, not cute.)
Just stop it.
Gee, something seems to be missing there. Could it be “sex?”
Unless that’s supposed to be the same as “gender” — which seems unlikely. I keep seeing people complaining that “terfs” keep confusing sex and gender. Thinking the two are equivalent is a serious error. It hurts trans people.
While on the subject of new laws, I’m trying to stir up local interest in a law that would prohibit charges of resisting arrest or interfering with a police officer in cases where there is no police body cam video of the arrest.
Pliny,
You could call it “The Police Information Gap Act”. I’m sure no one would complain.
Kind of related:
I recall from several weeks ago a guest post that was a long discussion about the terms ‘man’ & ‘woman’ as used by trans activists. It included the terms man1 woman1 man2 & woman2 for the usual meanings & trans activist uses of ‘man’ & ‘woman’
I want to find it for reference & bookmarking, but there is so much on this blog including I’m not sure how to find it.
Can anyone post a link to it?
Thank You
This one?
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2015/guest-post-true-but-irrelevant-or-relevant-but-false/
As you see it’s 5 years old rather than a few months but if the search function is working it’s the only one that uses “woman1.”
This one is more recent but doesn’t use “woman1”:
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2020/guest-post-the-only-people-of-gender-around/
Of course, the explanation could be that you read it a few months ago – searching for more by Bjarte perhaps.
James, I’m pretty sure you’re thinking about this one. As you can tell, I’m in the habit of repeating myself :-P
Ok, I guess I used the wrong tag for the link.
Anyway, the url is: http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2020/guest-post-a-hostile-ultimatum/
Maybe Ophelia can turn it into a proper link? Or you can just use copy and paste.
Heh, I missed that one. I wouldn’t call that fine post repeating yourself!
And now the link works without any tags at all. :-S
I’m soooo confused right now…
Thank you, Ophelia. :)
I know someone who considers himself very much on the right side of social issues. He values justice, fairness, and the protection of the powerless. I think these are all noble values. We should all hold those things dear.
He has very (I might say shockingly) little patience for any real feminist analysis or perspective. He believes J. K. Rowling is undeniably bad, TERFs are monsters, and Karens deserve what they get. I have tried to argue with him that it’s gross—and an example of deeply ingrained misogyny—to create and traffic in this new stereotype, this new way to say that “those” women are bad.
Of course it’s bad to be racist. But 1) most of the time, Karens aren’t dangerous racists; they’re unpleasant or self-entitled women, and 2) it’s telling that we don’t revel in memes about male Karens. (We can’t find any unpleasant or self-entitled men? Nothing could be easier.)
To me, it’s obvious that “Karen” is yet another way for progressive men to tell women to shut up (and for women to say, “Do it to her, not me!”).
Thanks Bjarte:
That’s the one I was looking for. I now have it book marked
All those 1s& 2s after man & woman in the post were subscripts, so I guess that was why Ophelia couldn’t find them.