I’ve kept up intermittently with the bloggings-on of Janet Bloomfield, more commonly known by the nom de guerre JudgyBitch; opining on subjects such as misandry, the race-IQ gap, Donald Trump, and the failures of feminism, the Bitch has made quite a name for herself amongst the denizens of both the manosphere and the alt-right. My own limited reading of her gives me the impression of a writer with a penchant for provocative, push-button prose.
Over the weekend, manospherian and one-time guest poster at JB’s site Dre Morell brought a recent post of hers to my attention; it was an interesting piece, covering the clash between holding onto a creed and holding onto a career. Should one suffer unemployment merely for holding beliefs one’s employers and/or customers may find objectionable? JudgyBitch, seeing past her own schadenfreude at a “man-hating feminst [getting] fired by her female boss”, says nay.
I’ll confess to enjoying a few moments of petty glee at her comeuppance, but serious reflection forces me to acknowledge that this is a disturbing event with the potential to cause much more harm than good, if adopted widely.
[…]
In order for the clinic’s patients to be offended over the videos, they would have to know about them. And even if they did know about them, and were offended, who cares? The only thing EliSophie should have been fired for was her behaviour, in my opinion. The moment she treated male patients with contempt or disrespect, buh-bye. Her poems about men having small dicks are her business, and if she keeps them her business and does not let her beliefs affect her job performance, then she deserves to have a job.
She then goes on to defend Christian bakers refusing to cater to homogamous unions; but does that not constitute an on-the-job example of belief informing behaviour? JB agrees, whilst pointing out that, unlike the fired femorrhoid, the caterers in Christ stand at the helm of their businesses; if they’re gonna incur the full costs of self-employment, why not the perks? The clientele foot ‘n’ wallet vote will decide, one way or another. Admittedly, it leaves little defence for employees who choose to express views inimical to the party line, like the misandrist mentioned above. Could a professedly atheist employee hope to flourish in such a foxhole? Is self-censorship the price one has to pay for productive and sustaining employment? The JudgyBitch finds herself flummoxed, citing nowt more than a feeling (which I share) that a too-liberal exercise of hiring ‘n’ firing based on one’s off-the-clock opinions sets a shitty precedent (e.g. picture the scenario of a professed anarchist or anti-statist having nowt but public-sector slots available as sustenance—it is to laugh…and cry!).
And then, she goes and throws those pesky Muslims into the mix:
Should Muslim bakers be allowed to refuse?
Absolutely not.
This will be hard to articulate, and I am going to do a clumsy job of it. I apologize. Fundamentalist Christians who oppose gay marriage and refuse to bake cakes for gays are on the wrong side of history when it comes to how the Christian public sees the issue. North America is still a Christian nation, founded on Christian principles, adhering to basic Christian doctrines like forgiveness, honesty, kindness, sin, redemption, etc. It doesn’t matter if you personally believe in God, or believe in some other God: we are a Christian nation founded on distinctly Christian values. The occasional baker who refuses to serve gay couples doesn’t, and won’t, dramatically alter the landscape for the majority, who have no issues with gay couples getting married and eating cake.
Muslim bakeries are refusing to bake cakes on the grounds of a hateful, violent religious and political belief system that is murdering gay men in horrific ways right now. And given the opportunity, they will bring that religious and political system into force across the whole planet. Part of forcing them to integrate with our values includes forcing them to bake cakes for gays, and if they can’t handle that we don’t want them here because they pose a legitimate threat in a way that Christian bakers simply do not.
As if the cake mix wasn’t conflicted enough, she slaps this fallacy fromage into the bowl, rendering the whole concoction inedible. This incongruous slab of special pleading seems to be a by-product of an amygdala-affrayed animus towards Allah’s abids, no doubt fuelled by reports of beheadings, bombings, and multiple gang gropings. To quote a friend of similar inclination: “Islamists are so aggressively aggressive that they trigger aroooga! aroooooooga! levels of arousal in other primates….It’s hard to calm yourself down when you’re dealing with this level of hatred.”
That said, I’ve yet to see said friend albatrossed by Allahphobia to the same extent as JB; the latter, in a glaring display of blame by association, proposes to penalise American Muslims for the dastardly doings of their co-religionists across the Atlantic. Going by my observations, and the accounts of fellow infidels Stateside, the American acolytes of Allah generally strike me as the least god-pozzed adherents of their faith by a considerable stretch; thus, JB’s call to strip that demographic of their freedom of association comes across as doubly laughable. Imagine, for instance, being an Ahmadiyya Muslim—like the Sunni-slain shopkeeper, Asad Shah—and having to submit to Bloomfield’s Saileresque “solution” on account of those who murder and persecute those of your sect a whole ocean away, despite the fact that your subcreedal lineage stretches back almost a century in the States sans significant strife; the tragicomedy writes itself!
Whatever the stuffy, conservative views of Allahphile-Americans regarding homosexuality, refusing to bake a cake for two blokes tying the knot is still a considerable distance away, conceptually and geographically, from blokes tossing blokes off buildings for tossing off blokes. Besides, why would any homogamous couple trust a fuddie-duddie fundie to cater to their wedding wants; what if manhandled Muslim bakers suddenly decide that phlegm, faeces, boogers, and cum would make absolutely halal ingredients for their special confections?
The issue of freedom of employee expression vs. freedom of employer association is one I intend to revisit in a future episode. For now, I’ll just say that if JudgyBitch fancies herself as a spokesperson for Western Enlightenment values, she really needs to step up her game; too much has already been compromised and conceded without her ordering fresh kindling for the dumpster fire.
Failing that, she might as well just quit wasting keystrokes, hand the ball over to the opposition, and bend face-down-arse-up in the direction of Mecca.
~MRDA~
Leave a Reply