Now that everyone is done being outraged about my language, can we step back and take a look at the actual argument, please? Thank you.<\/p>\n
I first thought of making this post a week or more ago, when I first read the original comment. The post I wrote in response was what I felt immediately on reading it. I saved it as a draft, but refrained from posting it knowing that the language would offend some people. After a week of thought, I decided to post it as it was.<\/p>\n
Why did I post it with that specific example instead of toning it down? Because I deliberately intended to be provocatice and jolt the readers out of their comfort zones. I could have written a longer, politer, more expository and detailed piece about how Tejal was attacking the same system that guaranteed her life, sexual emancipation, and overall freedom, and people would have slipped by it bored. That is not the inattention an idea of this magnitude deserves.<\/p>\n
Let’s look at how I could have responded in a ‘politer way’. I could have written this, for instance:<\/p>\n
\nI think Tejal should set an example for the rest of us by ‘depriviledging’ her drawing room and throwing it open to everyone: Thakurs, Dalits, Maoists, the John Birch society, illegal Bangladeshi immigrants and to the libertarian cartel for our next meeting. I see no reason why everyone should be a have-not when it comes to having a place to meet, especially when Tejal has the power to make everyone a have.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Fair enough, right? I draw out the absurdity of Tejal’s argument without pushing the wrong buttons and stepping on the sensitive subject of sexual assault. But let’s consider for a moment that this actually happened. After all, turning a drawing room into an open meeting place is not such an irrational demand. Then, what stops me from writing this:<\/p>\n
\nI think Tejal should set an example for the rest of us by ‘depriviledging’ her bank account and throwing it open to everyone: TamBrams, OBCs, Mother Teresa’s home for the Destitute, the Cato Society, Shivam and Nilu. After all, there’s no reason why they should be have-nots when Tejal has it in her power to provide them funds they need and can make good use of and turn them into haves.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
And now the demand is a bit more unreasonable. But how far is it from a drawing room to a bank account? Letting random people access your house and your money both pale in comparison to letting them assault your body, right?<\/p>\n
But, hey, since we’ve already opened up access to Tejal’s money, and it really isn’t that important compared to her dignity, let’s go a little bit further. After all, her body is the important thing out here. Her property, we can be flexible on.<\/p>\n
\nI think Tejal should set an example for the rest of us by ‘depriviledging’ her working hours. Why should her employer or her professors be the only ones to make demands on her time? The Indian Cancer Society desperately needs volunteers. I desperately need a secretary. Dominos could really do with another delivery girl. Why should we be denied Tejal’s labours when it’s in her power to turn us into haves?<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
And now Tejal works for us for free. But hey, nobody’s anally violating her, which is the important thing, right? So now we take one more step.<\/p>\n
\nI think Tejal should set an example by ‘depriviledging’ her body and donating her kidney. There’s this guy who really needs it, and Tejal’s a perfect donor. Why is she turning him into a have-not? It’s his llife at stake?<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Oh, come on. It’s a kidney. You can get by on one kidney. Why wouldn’t Tejal agree? Fine, so let’s take one more tiny baby step.<\/p>\n
\nI think Tejal should set an example by ‘depriviledging’ her body and letting infertile couples use her womb. They want kids so badly and don’t have any. Why is Tejal engendering this medical barrier by refusing to give out her womb?<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
All in a good cause, right? How far is it from here to raping Tejal? If her drawing room, her time and effort, her blood and organs are free for the taking, why not the rest of her?<\/p>\n
This<\/em> is why I started with the anal rape example: because it gets people outraged and excited. Because they respond to the fact that it is one of the most appalling crimes anybody can commit. Because you need to understand that the policy Tejal has advocated is the one which will lead to her loss of control over her own body. The earnest young leftist who says that the elite shouldn’t be allowed to decide who they can let on to their property is morally equivalent to the Congress (I) goon of 1984 who said that Sikh households were free for looting, or to the Bajrang Dal goons in Gujrat who said that Muslim women were theirs to rape.<\/p>\n
Yes, we can debate elitism. I think the pros of elitism outweigh the cons, but I can appreciate and sympathise with people who want to mitigate or elilminate the cons. But when someone wants to pull down the system of property rights just because elitism flows out from it, they’re on the path to self-destruction. They would do well to remember it.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Now that everyone is done being outraged about my language, can we step back and take a look at the actual argument, please? Thank you. I first thought of making this post a week or more ago, when I first read the original comment. The post I wrote in response was what I felt immediately […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_hide_featured_image":false,"_jetpack_featured_image_duplicate_dismissed":0,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-222","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-human-rights"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p7AOU2-3A","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aadisht.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/222","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aadisht.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aadisht.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aadisht.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aadisht.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=222"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.aadisht.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/222\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aadisht.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=222"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aadisht.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=222"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aadisht.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=222"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}