Writes the pop culture website Too Fab, a proud young social justice warrior pop culture hangout,
“A “Wonder Woman” screening exclusively for women at the Alamo Drafthouse theater in Austin has pissed off a lot of fragile men.”
No, the outrageous double standard represented by the screening has pissed off anyone with a modicum of ethics comprehension, and should.
If you don’t immediately see the problem, you’re part of it. Even the galactically tone-deaf Hillary Clinton didn’t hold a women-only campaign rally (although her post-campaign rally at the Wellesley College graduation yesterday was pretty close to one.) Barack Obama’s most rudimentary ethics alarm would have sounded if an aide proposed a blacks-only event. Hey, let’s promote the NFL with a men-only exhibition game! Given their promotional instincts, I’m surprised Alamo Drafthouse theater didn’t have a screening of the racist, “Whites are trying to destroy us all!” horror film “Get Out” restricted to endangered African-Americans, and maybe balance it off with a whites-only classic film screening of “Birth of a Nation.”
The striking aspect of this per se double standard display is that the Left is defending it, and mocking its critics using Swiss-cheese logic worthy of an evolution denier.
Here’s NY Magazine:
“After a decade of superhero movies starring identical white men named Chris, we’re finally getting a comic-book movie with a female lead: Wonder Woman, directed by Patty Jenkins. To celebrate this long-overdue milestone, the Alamo Drafthouse in Austin, Texas, announced they will be holding a women-only screening of the film, run by an all-female staff. Unfortunately, some people aren’t so pleased about the announcement. Can you guess who?After the screening was announced, a gaggle of angry male commenters took to the theater’s Facebook page to whine about “reverse sexism” and “segregation” while complaining that Alamo never puts on “all-male” screenings of films with male leads. This has become a common refrain anytime a popular franchise attempts to diversify (see: Ghostbusters, Star Wars), despite the fact that Hollywood remains overwhelmingly white and male across the board.”
The technique on display here is If you can’t defend something legitimately, pretend it’s something else you can defend. What does objecting to gender discrimination at a movie screening have to do with how many white male superheroes movies there have been? (Wonder Woman is white, by the way, being Greek, unless a new edict has come down from the Tribal Grievance Authority that Greeks are to be considered “persons of color,” in which case I’m not white. Boy, wouldn’t that be great! All that white privilege wiped out, like a bad case of acne!)
It really is mind-boggling. The same progressives who are insisting that it should be illegal to segregate bathrooms gonad distribution are mocking objections to a movie theater banning audience members who aren’t the “right” gender. To be fair, this particular brand of head-spinning hypocrisy—Members of our group are owed the equality that has been so long denied them by our oppressors, so they should be the beneficiary of exactly the same kind of illegal, demeaning, handicapping discrimination that has victimized them!—is rampant right now, part of the slow descent of American liberalism into self-contradiction and madness.
At at Evergreen State College in Washington state, black and Latino students annually hold a “Day of Absence” in which they leave campus to bring attention to the significant role they play at the college, or something. This year, they want to kick all the whites off campus, while they stay. This would turn the “Day of Absence” into “Imagine How Great It Would Be If There Were No Whites! Day”. A professor who made the rather obvious observation that this was divisive, hypocritical, discriminatory and stupid has been the object of so much protest by the student neo-segregationists that he has been forced to flee the campus for his safety. The professor was more diplomatic that I would have been, writing:
“There is a huge difference between a group or coalition deciding to voluntarily absent themselves from a shared space in order to highlight their vital and under appreciated roles … and a group or coalition encouraging another group to go away. The first is a call to consciousness which is, of course, crippling to the logic of oppression. The second is a show of force and an act of oppression in and of itself. I would encourage others to put phenotype aside and reject this new formulation. [O]n a college campus, one’s right to speak — or to be — must never be based on skin color.”
Of course, he was called a racist.
I marvel at the bold and indefensible rationalization inherent in the defenses of both the Evergreen racists (for it is they, not the professor, who meet that description) and the movie theater, that a single instance of invidious discrimination is perfectly fine, even if extended discrimination of the same kind would be an outrageous injustice. The rationalization is on the list…11. (a) “I deserve this!” or “Just this once!”
The individual application of this rationalization is common to the hero, the leader, the founder, the admired and the justly acclaimed. It is the variation on The King’s Pass that causes individuals who should know better to convince themselves that their years of public service, virtue and sacrifice for the good of others entitle them to just a little unethical indulgence that would be impermissible if engaged in by a lesser individual. …The group version is perhaps more insidious. It typically occurs when a group or class that has been mistreated (or considers itself so) demands a special privilege to be unethical for a brief interval, and a dispensation from any adverse consequences.
Imagine applying the reasoning that just one day of invidious discrimination was benign to the workplace and anti-discrimination law: a single instance of substantive prejudice based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, sexual orientation, family responsibility, or physical handicap is not objectionable, and kinda fun! The acceptance of a single day of discrimination stands for the proposition that it is not discrimination and prejudice itself that is unethical, but how it is applied, who applies it, and for how long. Thus do liberals undermine and diminish their own best ideals. Is the idea that one instance of telling men that they are not good enough—you know, not quite right…they don’t have the necessities, as Al Campanis put it—to attend a movie screening is fair, but two is unjust? That seems rather arbitrary—if one is harmless, then two is just one more than that: isn’t two times harmless still harmless?
As of Thursday, the no men allowed screening has sold out, and Alamo was planning to add more.
I’m waiting to see how many women or women’s rights groups have the integrity to side with those “fragile men.”
UPDATE: Then there’s this..
Pointer: The Blaze