The threat of coronavirus is as tangible as it is deadly. For some, coronavirus means the death of a loved one. For others, it means closing their business, losing their job or finding themselves in financial limbo.
And while some have chosen to tuck themselves away in their homes, pull their children out of school or begrudgingly close the doors of their business at the behest of government mandates, it’s clear that there is no neat or comfortable way to express the devastating real-world consequences of these choices.
As the world grapples with the challenges posed by coronavirus, social justice journalists have remained true to form. They've used their voices not to allay the fears of their readers or provide important information for a dangerous time, but to stoke the fires of further division through identity politics.
It comes as no great surprise that feminist writers and race-baiters alike have taken to publications to express their dissatisfaction with the effects of coronavirus. But their discontent does not hinge upon the virus’s fatality or infection rates, but rather its effects on feminism and “anti-racism.”
One confusing assertion put forward by hysterical social justice zealots is that any criticism of China’s role in the pandemic is somehow racist, or at the very least, grounded in racism. This is the primary argument of major outlets from CNN to NBC to CBS, who have linked Trump’s use of the terms “Chinese virus” and “Wuhan flu” to “xenophobia, nativism, bigotry and racism.”
Unsurprisingly, white nationalism has too been roped into this discussion, with “anti-extremism experts” from the SPLC, a disgraced and discredited organization, alleging that social distancing and self-isolation is leading to an “uptick” in racism and white nationalism online.
“Anti-extremism experts spoke at length about their concerns about violent white-nationalist rhetoric mounting in the midst of the pandemic, fueled in part by actions taken by the Trump administration.”
What’s more confusing still is the declaration that the government and media response to the virus is not only racist, but a signal of white privilege. According to writer Solomon Jones, the government-ordered closure of nonessential businesses will hit non-white owners harder and “reflects the very white assumption of a safety net—something black communities don’t have.”
It is a fact that coronavirus originated in and disseminated from China. It is also a fact that business owners, no matter the colour of their skin, will likely watch their livelihoods go down the drain under the strict forced closures implemented by governments around the world.
This is not a race issue. To make it one shows the nature of the social justice movement—a crusade that has little to no regard for the welfare of the overall population, but rather, reserves its concern for pockets of identity groups.
If coronavirus and its relationship to white privilege, supremacy, and racism wasn’t absurd enough, the feminist take on the matter goes the extra mile.
Perhaps the most bizarre claim from the social justice mob is that “white male privilege is literally making America sick.” This Salon article claims that Trump’s mismanagement of the coronavirus crisis is rooted in his white male privilege and, had he been female or non-white, he’d have been impeached by now.
But attacking Trump is easy. Journalists—radical or not—do it all the time. What’s an impressive feat, however, is correlating coronavirus to the oppression of women. Several writers have asserted that coronavirus affects men and women differently. In some ways, this is true (as far as social and economic reasoning goes).
However, journalist Helen Lewis claims that “women’s independence will be a silent victim of the pandemic,” suggesting women will shoulder the responsibility of household upkeep and their economic disadvantage will worsen during and after coronavirus. Her criticism extends to policymakers and their “gender-neutral approach to pandemics,” demanding that they acknowledge cataclysmic events affect the sexes differently.
While the claim that women will bear the brunt of coronavirus—at least socially—seems to have gained traction, it overlooks the fact that men make up the majority of coronavirus deaths—not just in this case, but each time there has been a significant new viral outbreak. Men were disproportionately affected by both MERS and SARS, with a death rate of 32 and 50 percent, respectively.
The sad reality is that coronavirus has brought society to a halt in ways that nobody could have anticipated. But the bare bones of the issue boil down to crisis response, economic stability and healthcare readiness. There is no room in a pandemic for the progressive pandering and cultish narrow-mindedness of victimhood propaganda.
If the social justice response to a time of uncertainty and panic is to sow the seeds of further division, then perhaps it’s time for the world to turn away from social justice once and for all.