Do Some Social Justice Advocates Go Too Far?

[merrily]

25. This article complains about identity politics and balkanization of certain groups, then

proceeds to balkanize Millennials.

I read quite several paragraphs before I got to any specific complaitn, namely:

Because, at the behest of millennial social justice advocates, we are told not to question rape victims. To do so is “victim blaming” and can potentially “re-traumatize” the victim.

This is totally false. Victim shaming is blaming the victim for the rape, not merely questioning the victim about what happened. The publication in question engaged in bad journalism and has admitted that. Good journalism would not have required victim shaming, but journalistic investigation. The publication did not even do the very minimum, namely seeking a comment from the accused. Being respectful to someone who claims to have been raped is not an excuse for bad journalism and good journalism does not require asking a rape victim how much cleavage she was displaying to the rapist before the rape.

Much of this rhetoric comes from the idea that there is a pervasive rape culture on campuses nationwide that must be stamped out;

Um, like the Senior Salute that's been in media recently? What's your point, again?

more systemically, there are socially-endorsed and institutionally-endorsed modes of patriarchy that continually oppress women.

And there aren't? Are you kidding me?

Trans vaginal probes, denial of insurance coverage, denial of control over one's body, absence of female priests in the Catholic Church and very few in any church, "women, be obedient to your husbands," etc. Denying the existence of socially endorsed and institutionally endorsed modes of patriarchy intended to oppress women seems borderline insane to me.

The ideas purported in the quote above seek to remedy that under the name of social justice. But in what world are these statements liberal, let alone in accordance with social justice?

How is it NOT social justice or NOT liberal to seek to remedy socially endorsed and institutionally endorsed modes of patriarchy?

The mantra of the movement is thus: It is impossible to be racist against white people because racism is the equivalent of prejudice and power. Since white people have social and economic institutional power and privilege (in America), those who are racially oppressed cannot be racist toward whites since those who are racially oppressed do not have power.

Here, I agree somewhat with the author. IMO, when you say white people are racist shits, that is a broad brush statement condemning a large group of people based on nothing but skin color and that is a racist statement. However, I am often, but not always, willing to suck it up because I've never had to put up with what people who don't look white have had to put up with. A broad brush statement is not the equivalent of worrying myself into an early grave because my kid might not make it home from school.

Besides, it is not only Millennial women or Millennial people of color who hold the views to which he objects, another example of broad brushing almost always being false.

It may be that some things go too far, but I don't think this article makes the case well, if at all. On the other hand, I "hear" in this article a white male wanting to seem like a victim of society and also "hear" him painting Millennials with the same broad brush he is objecting to. For me, that's a no sale as to this article and author.