24/07/2018
Solmaz
Opinion
Back to top

Obnoxious Misandry and Anti-White Racism on TVNZ

"I reject vehemently the politics of envy, the incitement of people to regard all success as if it were something discreditable, gained only by taking selfish advantage of others"

- Margaret Thatcher

Last month, a video displaying blatant racism and misandrous ideology was uploaded on YouTube. It was a scene from Kiwi Soap Opera - 'Shortland Street'. The interesting thing about it was that the speaker was not portrayed as your typical ideologue of social justice nature - she was not obese, nor did she have unnatural coloured hair, or a septum piercing for that matter! She was, from what I could tell, supposed to be a well-established doctor with a vendetta against the evil Pakeha man who is trying to keep others down.

 

According to her, white men are "drunk on control", and they're "terrified of change". Since she made a sweeping generalisation and didn't specify which white people or white males, I pose the following challenge for her:

  • Explain how from your point of view how men like that white men like William Wilberforce who dedicated their entire lives to stopping BROWN people (seeing as you're so obsessed with race) from keeping slaves were so power hungry and terrible.
  • Explain how May, Merkel, Ardern, and Her Majesty are under the control of the patriarchy.
  • Explain how race relations and male/female relations aren't the best they've ever been.
  • Explain how the ideas of white men did not prompt the progress that led to people from all backgrounds relying on and working with one another to create products we all rely on everyday.

Sadistic and patronising, she is "here to make sure the right people take their place" as she tells another Maori female, leaving behind any room for meritocracy or competition! The other doctor is a female of colour and therefore must succeed on that basis — it's not like she has worked hard or anything. Social justice worriers are so self-aggrandising that they believe they were appointed to choose who will and will not "fall". Apparently winning the oppression Olympics makes you the most qualified for a position.

This scene is meant to be empowering and promising to minorities, but it is at the expense of white males (who do not have the monopoly over prosperity by the way) and so it is not fulfilling its purpose. It is no longer about people of colour and women fulfilling their greatest potential but rather scoring points against those we've assigned the label of oppressor in society. The writers must consider the amount of backlash they would have received had their their characters on nationally broadcasted television vowed to take away their positions of minorities on the basis of their race (which they cannot control). There have been times where all groups have used their powers to tread on others but it is essential that we are able to discriminate between different individuals instead of generalising an entire gender and race. I am not justifying oppressive acts that SOME white men have committed but I refuse to enjoin in the mass hysteria that seeks to diminish the presence of all members of a group in society! Racism is racism regardless of who its victims and perpetrators are.

Alternatively, do the writers have Zimbabwe in mind when calling for the downfall of white people? Do they wish to remove white people from their homes, usurp their property and jobs so that the economy has collapses? White farmers were the most productive in Zimbabwe, and removing them only exasperated problems. I admit this is far fetched but it is unclear what is meant by "they'll fall" — are we merely making it more difficult for them to gain positions of power or are we deleting them out of society completely (both, I fear, will have detrimental consequences).

Or do they merely wish to cause mass hysteria to the point where their middle class cronies run around Auckland city with their faces covered shouting "WHITE MALE PRIVILEGE" at the homeless?

Have you thought that perhaps removing the Pakeha, or anyone for that matter, who is qualified for their job (on the basis of something their don't have control over like race, sex and sexuality) and replacing in with a less qualified individual (although they may be members of the victim class) will decrease productivity?

I abhor the idea that in order to become successful and gain a high position in society, you must push others out your way lest you may take their spot. There is not a finite number of spots for success, and therefore there is no need for anyone else to fall. Wealth is constantly being created and everyone can live their best life. This has been the case for majority of the world's population who are no longer living in poverty.

The condescending idea that females and people of colour are inherently too incompetent to gain positions of power without unfair advantages is rather regressive if you ask me. In fact, it is not far from what is believed by the alt-right or even the paternal imperialists that are supposedly hated by social justice worriers. Minorities do not need a saviour like this character to choose who succeeds and who doesn't — the free market, the good of others, and God (depending on who you ask), is a much better indicator.

As my mum always says: "instead of letting yourself become consumed with envy, ask God to continue giving to those well off, and ask him to give to you too". He, after all, is all compassionate and giving — there is no reason we cannot all strive for and reach our desired positions in life.