Gender Apartheid?

On the face of it, the claim that there is “gender apartheid” in NAPARC is not only implausible but even offensive. First, those who make the claim did so on their own, public podcast. Under apartheid black South Africans were not freely, without government interference, doing the equivalent of podcasts. Our podcasters were in no danger of authorities breaking down the door of their studio. Indeed, our podcasters have the ability to control with whom they will talk—they block on social media even the mildest critics and potential dialogue partners. Further, our female podcasters were theologically educated or had other advanced academic degrees. Again, for prosperous females in North America, who have earned masters and doctoral degrees, to complain of apartheid is just silly. It is offensive because it demeans the very real oppression that black South Africans suffered under apartheid. It is the equivalent of comparing standing in line at Starbucks to standing in a chow line in prison. It is not a thoughtful way to argue.

R. Scott Clark, “Gender Apartheid” And “Toxic Masculinity” In NAPARC?

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “Gender Apartheid?

  1. The social engineering is so blatant now, it’s hard to even remember what it was like before. Perhaps cities like NYC are worse – because of the constant barrage of “public service announcement” messages. There are at least 3 subway campaigns on now (public and commercial) addressing the topic above. But those of you living in more “human” environments seem to have less of an advantage than previously. Specifically, social media (which is anything but) seems to have the hearts and souls of many people. Every time someone shows me something from their Facebook page, it’s amazing to point out the things they “don’t see”. Despite their claims that, “I just ignore that stuff”, those unseen messages and images are the core of the science of social programming.

    God help us.

    Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.