A Phobiaist’s Complaint

ATempleby Deana Chadwell5/20/15
I am so confused. Perhaps the progressives are correct and we right-wingers are inadequately subtle and nuanced in our thinking. I know that liberals speak out against labeling and stereotyping, but that confuses me too because they have built up so many tiny little contradictory pigeon-holes to stuff people into and for the life of me I can’t figure out who goes where.

If I am afraid that Islamists might kill me, and I want to stop them, I’m Islamiphobic, but a “phobia” is an unreasonable fear – like arachibutyrophobia– an irrational, intense fear of peanut butter sticking to the roof of your mouth. PB is a little gluey, but that’s what the J is for, so there’s no reason for fear. No one has ever died from peanut butter stickiness. But millions have died horrifying deaths at the hands of Islamists, so it seems reasonable to have some serious concerns about their intentions. Even if only 1% are dangerous, that still makes a million of them running around with bombs and machetes. Pardon my Islamophobia, but yikes.[pullquote]And what do we call liberal women who seem comfortable with the prospect of Sharia? There’s no term for them? Allow me: Christophobic nincompoops.[/pullquote]

If, however, I’m afraid of offending said Muslims, and kowtow to their every ridiculous demand, I’m not Islamophobic, I am compassionate and multicultural and diverse. Muddle, muddle. This same principle appears when dealing with issues surrounding gay rights.

If I am against gay marriage and wish that homosexuals would keep their clothes on in public, then I’m homophobic, somehow afraid of these sequined and painted people who mostly just want to force me to say that what they do is just fine with God, who, according to them, doesn’t exist (Large question mark appears over my head).

For quite a long time I laughed at the term “homophobic” because it was so over-reactive, but given recent developments and the gay rights folk being willing to ruin, bankrupt, and dispossess Christians who are unwilling to countermand God’s instructions on marriage, perhaps it’s reasonable to be afraid of same-sex couples. But then if the fear is rational it isn’t a phobia.

Speaking of gay issues, what do we call the liberal gay male who is pro-Palestinian? Do these guys not know that Muslims in their own countries throw gay men off roofs?  And what do we call liberal women who seem comfortable with the prospect of Sharia? There’s no term for them? Allow me: Christophobic nincompoops.

Speaking of nincompoopness, let’s look at the issue of sexism, which I’ve always found perplexing. After all everyone has a sex – in fact, it appears now that we all have several.

So are you sexist if you’re homosexual and want nothing to do with the opposite sex? Doesn’t seem like it. Are you sexist if you don’t like the sex you are and want to change it? Nope – don’t think so. If you change from a man to a woman, do you then become pro-men, or were you always? If so, then are you now straight? I don’t know. Perhaps a person is sexist only if he, or she (), still believes in the original man/woman sexual arrangement, though that seems the only reasonable attitude given the fact that a mere 2% of the population is oriented otherwise. But “reasonable” is not part of this picture.

Now, if one is both pro-Islamic and anti-sexist (anti-sexist= anti-male, which is, in some mysterious way, not sexist) then how can you accept the anti-female dictates of Sharia Law? Are you afraid you would be labeled mutilaphobic if you took a stand against such practices? I should also point out that Muslim men are given permission by the Koran to marry four wives, simultaneously, and to beat them whenever they wish. But we would be mistaken if we think this behavior is sexist. To think so would be provincial and naïve, completely lacking in the suavity of multiculturalism. And any woman, like Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Brigitte Gabriel, who speaks out against Islamic barbarism toward women is a hateful bigot – we must somehow digest that, confounding as that may be.

So, are you sexist if you dislike or distrust a given woman? It depends on the woman. If she has a liberal vagina, she is good, right? If she doesn’t, then she’s bad. No. Well, sort of; if she hasn’t a vagina then she is a he, and that would be bad.  But what about a transgendered person – is a manufactured vagina enough? And why isn’t a uterus necessary? Oh, that’s right, that’s the troublesome part of the female anatomy, so there will be no bragging about it. We only talk about the fun part.

Then there’s racism; what makes a person racist? Evidently, distrusting Barack Obama and Eric Holder. But, you have to understand that their being black is not the issue. After all, it’s ok to hate Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, Ben Carson, Allen West, etc. The issue is conservative vs. progressive, not black versus white. They say that’s the point, but it isn’t. It has something to do with authenticity – whatever that means. Obama is not of slave blood, is not poor, never has been. But he is an authentic socialist, so I assume that is the issue in racism; one must have X amount of melanin in the skin and vote Democrat – such a person can have nothing critical said about them. I have no idea why.

That gets us to the issue of thugism. He who is prone to tearing up private property, setting fire to family businesses, shooting cops and expecting to be paid for his trouble may mistakenly be called a thug. This is deceptive because if said thug is also black then he can’t be a thug, because thug is the new incarnation of the word n—-r, which can only be used by racists (unless the speaker is authentically black). And don’t forget that racists can only be white and can only vote Republican – in spite of the fact that slavery and racism are Democrat constructs. It was Republicans who pushed to rid our society of both. Do you see why I’m puzzled?

We also have to remember that it’s ok for a black person to be a copist, to be policephobic — regardless of whether or not the cop in question is black. Nor is copism influenced by the fact that blacks arrested by cops (black or white) are actually committing crimes. If I point out that more blacks are arrested than whites because blacks commit more crimes, that makes me a racist. Facts have no bearing on the issue, which is always bewildering.

It’s also baffling that the aborting of black babies is not racist.  That blacks appear, if the statistics are accurate, to be more babyophobic than other races mystifies me. They are dooming their own race to perpetual minority status, but it’s still racist to be against that practice. Sexist also, evidently because we only honor the vagina, the playground, and not the reproductive part of feminine power. Perplexing in the extreme.

I am beginning to understand the left’s fascination with drugs. Anyone this realityphobic has got to be heavily medicated to make it from one day to the next. In fact, I may need medicating if I have to listen to much more of this drivel. I don’t hate blacks, gays, or Muslims, but I do hate it when people use the smoke and mirrors of illogic and linguistic trickery to hide the fact that they have no idea what they are talking about. Call me a phobiaist, if you must call me something, and try talking sense. We’d all be happier.


Deana Chadwell blogs at ASingleWindow.com.
About Author Author Archive Email • (1160 views)

Share
Deana Chadwell

About Deana Chadwell

I have spent my life teaching young people how to read and write and appreciate the wonder of words. I have worked with high school students and currently teach writing at Pacific Bible College in southern Oregon. I have spent more than forty years studying the Bible, theology, and apologetics and that finds its way into my writing whether I’m blogging about my experiences or my opinions. I have two and a half moldering novels, stacks of essays, hundreds of poems, some which have won state and national prizes. All that writing — and more keeps popping up — needs a home with a big plate glass window; it needs air; it needs a conversation.
I am also an artist who works with cloth, yarn, beads, gourds, polymer clay, paint, and photography. And I make soap.

This entry was posted in Essays. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to A Phobiaist’s Complaint

  1. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    I am beginning to understand the left’s fascination with drugs. Anyone this realityphobic has got to be heavily medicated to make it from one day to the next.

    The sale of dope was legalized in Washington State not long ago. And I get calls every once in a while to do printing for these firms. And chances are better than 50/50 that the person on the other end of the telephone can barely string two words together. I had a hilarious conversation the other day that began something like this

    Prospective client: Hello. Do you do labels?

    Me: Yes we do. Can you give me some of the specs. Color or black and white, size, quantity, etc?

    Prospective client: (And I can’t type her words exactly so I’ll just describe them. She stuttered, rambled, uhhh’d, ahhh’d, and sputtered for a good 10 seconds, always talking but not quite getting to any coherent thought. I’m patiently listening to her trying to form a thought — it’s her turn to talk and I’m indeed listening — and then she says unexpectedly, “Hello? Are you still there?”

    LOL. I don’t know if the humor of that comes through. But I had a hard time not laughing over the phone. This is what pot is doing to the flower of our youth. Another truth. But I suppose that makes me a pot-o-phobe.

  2. Timothy Lane says:

    The Soviet Union pioneered the notion that opposition is a form of insanity (which was imported to America by way of a number of psychiatrists who in 1964 were willing to call Goldwater insane simply because he disagreed with them). So it’s no surprise that modern liberals use the language of mental illness to smear those guilty of the crime of opposing them. It’s also ironic, since those who use “islamophobic” to smear the likes of Pamela Geller behave in a genuinely islamophobic reaction when the concept of attacks on religion comes up. (Of course, they have good reason for their fear, but if they consider that excuse unacceptable for us, then it’s equally unacceptable for them.)

    Incidentally, I don’t put jelly on my peanut butter sandwiches. And I never worry about getting it stuck to the roof of my mouth. (Around 20 years ago, I saw some scene in a Saturday morning cartoon — it happened to be on when I went into the consuite at a convention in Nashville — in which someone offered a boy what he had been informed was his favorite food, but which he had slightly misheard. It was a peanut, butter, and jello sandwich. I’ve never tried one myself.

  3. Pst4usa says:

    Just to keep me safe, I am now going to use a new term for self description, I a potential Muslim convert lesbian trapped in a melanin challenged mans body anti-copaphobe pork eating successfully recovering anorexic looking for a good peanut butter sandwich. Now if I could come up with an acronym?

  4. Rosalys says:

    Loved this article, Deana. Michael Savage is right – (Modern) Liberalism is a mental disorder!

  5. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    The Leftist motto, “Don’t confuse me with the facts, I know what I believe.”

    The mind boggles at the amount of cognitive dissonance which must fill their little heads.

  6. Tom Kendrick says:

    Apart from the dictionary definition of irrational, there really isn’t anything irrational about a fear of Islam. Islam has provided thirteen hundred years of reasons for fear this stain upon humanity. Since May 14, 1948, Islam has stepped up the pace until they are now threatening the very existance of Western Civilization along with their sidekick, Marxism.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      The irony is that those who mock critics of Islam as “islamophobic” clearly act on the basis of their own (rational, but denied) fear of Islam. But they’re liberals, so one should expect that sort of behavior.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *