Feeds:
Posts
Comments

If women were fleeing the nation’s universities and colleges, we would have a national uproar, but men are now fleeing in large numbers and society barely notices. Numbers tell the story. Men have been falling behind women for decades. By 2009 National Center for Education statistics for degree-granting institutions listed 11.658 million women enrolled and 8.769 million men.  Many predict that women will soon account for 60 percent of our college grads. Public colleges like North Carolina at Chapel Hill and private ones like NYU have almost reached the 60 percent mark already. The University of Vermont in Burlington has so many women that the women jokingly call their college town Girlington. Diane Ravitch, the noted historian of education and a former assistant secretary of education asks: When will it be fair? When women are 60 percent or 75 percent of college enrollments? Perhaps it will be fair when there are no men at all.”

Among minorities, the male-female balance is even more skewed. When economist Andrew Sum and his colleagues at the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University looked at gender disparities in the Boston Public Schools, they found that for the class of 2008, among blacks there were 188 females for every 100 males attending a four-year college or university. Among Hispanics the ratio was 233 female for every 100 males. The facts are incontrovertible: young women from low-income neighborhoods in Boston, Los Angeles or Washington, D.C., do much better than the young men from those same neighborhoods. There are now dozens of studies with titles like “The Vanishing Latino Male in Higher Education” and “African-American Males in Education: Endangered or Ignored?”

Males Fading Away

So where are all the men?  Media accounts are short on insight and often just insult males, calling them lazy and dumb. Maybe we would be better off if the media and elites weren’t so openly pleased that women are outpacing men in college. The college strike didn’t happen overnight. It started years ago when the war against boys began after the feminist era. Initially, feminism was presented as being about equal rights between the sexes. Now it is often about revenge and special privileges for women and girls. Christina Hoff Sommers, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and the author of The War Against Boys, argues that feminists and their sycophants have worked hard to turn the educational system into one that favors girls at the expense of boys. Boys are now seen as “defective girls” in need of a major overhaul. Sommers says, “Gender experts at Harvard, Wellesley, and Tufts, and in the major women’s organizations, believe that boys and men in our society will remain sexist (and potentially dangerous) unless socialized away from conventional maleness. . . . The belief that boys are being wrongly ‘masculinized’ is inspiring a movement to ‘construct boyhood’ in ways that will render boys less competitive, more emotionally expressive, more nurturing–more, in short, like girls.”

Girls Have an Advantage

Boys are more at risk than girls in the U.S. educational system. A MetLife study stated, “Girls appear to have an advantage over boys in terms of their future plans, teacher’s expectations, everyday experiences at school and interactions in the classroom.”  Boys are less engaged in school, and less engagement means less success in the classroom; in fact, engagement with school is probably the single most important factor of academic success. Boys are more likely than girls to come to school without supplies and without doing their homework. Why aren’t boys more engaged in school? According to Sommers, “schools today tend to be run by women for girls. Classrooms can be hostile environments for boys. They like action, competition and adventure stories. Those are not in favor. Games like tag and dodgeball are out; tug of war has become tug of peace, and male heroes have been replaced by Girl Power.”  Boys receive lower marks from female teachers, according to research done for the London School of Economics’ Centre for Economic Performance.

http://www.mindingthecampus.com/2013/05/why_men_are_avoiding_college/

 

when schools and colleges becoming hostile to men and natural sexuality a community is thriving without their bullshit.  schools and colleges don’t put food on the table.

http://maisonneuve.org/article/2013/01/7/whats-eating-little-portugal/

 

The average household income of a Portuguese resident of Mississauga, a Toronto suburb, is $80,210, slightly higher than the city average. In Little Portugal, it’s just under $60,000—not lavish, but usually enough to live comfortably, to own a car, to take yearly trips back to Europe.

Even in poorer Little Portugal, 66.4 percent of Portuguese own their homes. That’s also higher than the city average. (For Portuguese in Mississauga, it’s a staggering 88.5 percent.)

– See more at: http://maisonneuve.org/article/2013/01/7/whats-eating-little-portugal/#sthash.2a2BRAS2.dpuf

 

and the college/university snobs are sad

 

 

 

 

by Tommy Sotomayor

 

part 1

 

 

 

part 2

 

 

 

 

The Enemies of Metal

Since I was in high school, I’ve always loved to rock out to Manowar. For those of you who don’t know Manowar, they sing songs about fighting kings, eight-dimensional horses, and most of all: standing as an army against the enemies of metal. While the songs are all awesome, one thing had always bothered me: who the hell are the enemies of metal?

The PMRC has been dead since the mid-90s, and nobody’s heard from Tipper Gore in so long that there’s good odds the guitarist from Cannibal Corpse ate her. Well, almost 30 years after the first attempts to ban heavy metal, a new threat has arisen: pussified losers calling themselves “Social Justice Warriors”, who want to turn heavy metal into a never ending college diversity seminar.

If you’re reading this piece, you’re probably familiar with the term “Social Justice Warrior”, or SJW for short. For those of you who haven’t, site owner RooshV has a good summary here. They’re far-left weirdos with nothing going on in their life, who try to inject their toxic, tiresome political ideology into every field imaginable. They’ve taken over Atheism, Science Fiction Books, and they were poised to take over video games until #Gamergate started roundly thrashing them. Now, with what’s being called #Metalgate, we’re finding out that they want to take over heavy metal too.

 

more at

http://www.reaxxion.com/3068/the-newest-battleground-against-sjws-is-metalgate

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11440808/Jihadi-John-Activist-who-praised-Mohammed-Emwazi-as-beautiful-caught-on-video-backing-jihad.html

 

The human rights campaigner who described Mohammed Emwazi as a beautiful young man’ previously supported waging jihad against British soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Asim Qureshi, research director at Cage, called on Muslims to back jihadists at an anti-US rally held in London in 2006.

In an emotive speech caught on video, Mr Qureshi told a crowd gathered at rally organised by Hizb-ut Tahrir, an Islamist group: “When we see the example of our brothers and sisters fighting in Chechnya, Iraq, Palestine, Kashmir, Afghanistan, then we know where the example lies. When we see Hezbollah defeating the armies of Israel, we know where the solution is and where the victory lies.

“We know that it is incumbent upon all of us, to support the jihad of our brothers and sisters in these countries when they are facing the oppression of the West.”

Mr Qureshi was in contact with Emwazi, the true identity of ‘Jihadi John’, for at least two years. Emwazi, 26, had contacted Cage for help after he was detained by MI5 over a trip to Tanzania amid allegations he was trying to join the terrorist group al-Shabaab, an al-Qaeda affiliate.

 

At a press conference on Thursday, Mr Qureshi provoked outrage in describing Emwazi as “the most humble young person that I ever knew”, calling him “extremely kind” and “extremely gentle” and blaming his radicalisation on the British authorities.

Yesterday, a spokesman for David Cameron condemned the comments as “reprehensible” while Boris Johnson, Mayor of London, said: “It was incredible that people could stand up and pretend that somehow it was the fault of the security forces for trying to apprehend and impede these guys and that that could somehow cause them to be radicalised.

“I think that is beyond satire and amounts to nothing less than an apology for terror. I hope they will be rethinking their position.”

Cage insists it is a legitimate human rights group, serving the interests of Muslim victims of injustice, torture and illegal detention. But it has also been accused of supporting convicted terrorists and promoting the preachings of Anwar al-Awlaki, the radical al-Qaeda cleric, who was killed in a US drone attack in 2011.

Cage was founded by Moazzem Begg, a former Guantanamo Bay detainee, who was charged with committing a Syria-related terrorism offence last year although the case collapsed when it emerged that MI5 had been in contact with him and was aware of the trip he was making.

Cage, which has its headquarters in east London, had also been working with Michael Adebolajo, the killer of Fusilier Lee Rigby outside his army barracks in Woolwich, prior to the murder and at a time when Adebolajo was complaining of being harassed by MI5.

Its bank accounts were frozen last summer and, according to the Cage website, its “funders and board” are under investigation.

On Friday, critics called on Cage’s backers to withdraw their support. The organisation has had funding from The Roddick Foundation and the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust and says on its website it works with a number of law firms and charities including the International Committee for the Red Cross The American Civil Liberties Union.

 

Robin Simcox, research director at Henry Jackson Society, a think tank which has previously investigated Cage, said: “Asim Qureshi has openly called for jihad in the past and makes no apology for it. It’s astonishing that anyone could view Cage as some kind of human rights group. They are not. They stand up for convicted terrorists and have long been associated with Anwar al-Awlaki. Recent events are finally allowing Cage to be exposed for what they truly are.”

He added: “Any reputable organisation that works with or supports Cage should seriously consider the kind of views they are giving legitimacy to”.

The Red Cross said it did not work with Cage as such but did have meetings with them from time to time. The charity said the comments by Mr Qureshi, who lives in a £500,000 house in Surrey, did not alter that position.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11440808/Jihadi-John-Activist-who-praised-Mohammed-Emwazi-as-beautiful-caught-on-video-backing-jihad.html

 

 

TOKYO: Japanese police Friday arrested three teenagers on suspicion of killing a 13-year-old schoolboy, in a chilling murder some local media suggested was inspired by Islamist extremist executions.

The brutalized and naked body of Ryota Uemura was found in undergrowth near a river last Friday. His neck had been repeatedly hacked at, apparently with a blood-soaked knife that was discovered nearby.

Low-crime Japan has been captivated by the killing, with media reporting every twist and turn in the investigation, including details of how the youngster’s mobile phone was used to send a friend request on a messaging app around the time of his death.

Populist weekly Shukan Shincho reported the wounds appeared to indicate that whoever killed Ryota may have been trying to decapitate him.

“Some investigators suspect [the criminals] watched Internet videos showing the execution of hostages by Islamic State (ISIS) fighters and sought to mimic them,” the magazine said, quoting an unnamed source close to police.

Japan is still reeling from the brutal murder of two of its citizens – war correspondent Kenji Goto and his friend Haruna Yukawa – by Islamist extremists in Syria.

Kanagawa Police Department Friday arrested an 18-year-old boy and two 17-year-olds, whose names were withheld because they are legally minors, on suspicion of murder, public broadcaster NHK and other media reported.

While a police spokesman declined to confirm the reports, investigators also obtained arrest warrants for two other teenagers over the murder in Kawasaki, an industrial city southwest of Tokyo, media said.

Junior high school student Ryota reportedly knew the suspects, and had been attacked by them previously, media said.

Violent crime is exceedingly rare in Japan and becomes very big news when it occurs.

– See more at: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2015/Feb-27/288988-japan-police-arrest-teens-for-isis-inspired-killing.ashx#sthash.Lui2sIyr.dpuf

“The supersensitivity of the [Women’s Liberation] movement to the lesbian issue, and the existence of a few militant lesbians within the movement, once prompted [NOW founder Betty] Friedan herself to grouse about ‘the lavender menace’ that was threatening to warp the image of women’s rights.”
Susan Brownmiller, New York Times, March 15, 1970 (quoted in In Our Time: Memoir of a Revolution)

“What is a lesbian? A lesbian is the rage of all women condensed to the point of explosion. …
“It should first be understood that lesbianism … is a category of behavior possible only in a sexist society characterized by rigid sex roles and dominated by male supremacy. … In a society in which men do not oppress women, and sexual expression is allowed to follow feelings, the categories of homosexuality and heterosexuality would disappear.”
Artemis March, et al., “The Woman Identified Woman,” May 1970

 

 

http://theothermccain.com/2014/07/14/sex-trouble-radical-feminism-and-the-long-shadow-of-the-lavender-menace/

No one can honestly discuss feminism without addressing the enduring question, “Which feminism are you talking about?” From its inception as the Women’s Liberation movement of the 1960s and ’70s, modern feminism has been fractured by schisms that its would-be mainstream leaders have sought to conceal from the larger public.

Many women who today identify themselves as feminists have never examined the history of these conflicts and are unfamiliar with the militant personalities and radical ideologies that have influenced feminism for the past half-century. When confronted with the extremist rhetoric of feminists — vehement denunciation of males, condemnation of heterosexuality, claims that men (collectively) oppress and victimize women (collectively) in ways comparable to the Holocaust — the average woman is understandably startled and, if she thinks of herself as a feminist, she quickly shifts into denial mode. The anti-male passage you’ve just quoted to her is an aberration, an anomaly, an expression of fringe beliefs that does not represent the feminism that she endorses. Sheis not a Marxist, she is not a lesbian or a man-hater, she is not the kind of pro-abortion fanatic who views motherhood as male-imposed tyranny. The question thus arises: Is she actually a feminist?

Any honest person who undertakes an in-depth study of modern feminism, from its inception inside the 1960s New Left to its institutionalization within Women’s Studies departments at universities, will understand that without the influence of radicals — militant haters of capitalism and Christianity, angry lesbians who view all males as a sort of malignant disease, deranged women who can’t distinguish between political grievances and their own mental illnesses — there probably never would have been a feminist movement at all. Yet no matter how many examples of radical feminism we may cite, or how crucial the connection between ideological extremism and the rhetoric of “mainstream” feminists, many women (and men) will continue to insist that the evidence offered is irrelevant to the kind of feminism they endorse and advocate.

Unthinking acceptance of simple slogans, a superficial discourse built around glittering generalities — “equality,” “choice,” etc. — is not an ideology, nor could this bland kind of feminism ever have been enough to inspire an enduring political movement. Even while they ignore the chasm between radical theory and their own feminism, however, women seem surprised to find that real life contradicts even the least controversial understanding of “sexual equality”:

I have always found it hard and confusing to be both a feminist and happily married. Why? Because in a good marriage, where both parties are equally happy, no one is keeping score. Feminists emphasize equality of roles, but in a real life marriage, this isn’t always realistic.

If women make equality the measure of their happiness, they are hopelessly doomed to misery in real life, if their ambitions include men, marriage and motherhood. Somewhere, there may be a perfect Feminist Man acceptable to the egalitarian ideal, but feminists generally mock that possibility. “Not My Nigel” is feminist shorthand for the claims of women that their man — their boyfriend, their husband, their son — does not engage in the sexist oppression that feminist rhetoric attributes to the male-dominated system of patriarchy. Feminists scorn the idea that any man can be an exception to their general condemnation of men, so that the acronym NAMALT (“Not All Men Are Like That”) is deployed to ridicule any woman who takes offense at feminist claims about the ubiquitous villainy of males.

Even if a woman is certain that she herself is not being victimized by her husband, even if she refuses to accept the claim that all men are violent oppressors complicit in “rape culture,” however, she will find that the routine conflicts and misfortunes of her everyday life are characterized by feminists as proof of women’s universal victimhood. If she heeds the voices of feminism, she will mentally magnify her problems into evidence of a pervasive pattern, and view the men in her life — her husband, her father, her male co-workers — as participants in, and beneficiaries of, the system of “male supremacy” denounced in the 1970 manifesto, “The Woman-Identified Woman”:

Lesbian is a label invented by the Man to throw at any woman who dares to be his equal, who dares to challenge his prerogatives . . . who dares to assert the primacy of her own needs. To have the label applied to people active in women’s liberation is just the most recent instance of a long history. . . For in this sexist society, for a woman to be independent means she can’t be a woman — she must be a dyke. That in itself should tell us where women are at. It says as clearly as can be said: women and person are contradictory terms. For a lesbian is not considered a “real woman.” . . . [W]hen you strip off all the packaging, you must finally realize that the essence of being a “woman” is to get fucked by men.

Is this brief excerpt taken out of context? Read the whole thing and see for yourself if the “context” attenuates the meaning. Nor can this manifesto be dismissed as an obscure fringe document irrelevant to feminist history. It was published less than two months after Susan Brownmiller’s important New York Times article about the nascent Women’s Liberation movement had mentioned the effort of Betty Friedan to prevent “the lesbian issue” from “warp[ing] the image” of feminism. Brownmiller herself dismissed Friedan’s fears, playing on the phrase “red herring” to mock the “Lavender Menace” as a “lavender herring,” only to see that clever jest thrown back in her face by the collective that published its manifesto as “Radicalesbians.”

Well,” replies the defender of “mainstream” feminism, “those lesbians were just a bunch of extremist kooks nobody ever heard of.”

Except they weren’t, and their kooky extremism did not hinder their influence. The “Radicalesbians” collective included Rita Mae Brown, a former staffer at Friedan’s National Organization for Women. In January 1970, Brown and another lesbian NOW staffer, Michela Griffo, resigned and joined forces with Ellen Shumsky and Artemis March (neé March Hoffman) to form a lesbian faction within the male-dominated Gay Liberation Front. In a series of meetings in Brown’s apartment, they formed a conspiracy to stage a disruptive protest as the Second Congress to Unite Women in May 1970. “The Woman-Identified Woman” was a statement largely written by March on behalf of the collective, and no one can say that either the manifesto or its authors were “fringe” obscurities.Artemis March, Ph.D., taught at Harvard University and was awarded a fellowship at the Radcliffe Institute, without ever repudiating her militant anti-male ideology (here’s an example from 2010). Rita Mae Brown became a best-selling author whose 1973 lesbian novel The Rubyfruit Jungle is often featured in high school reading lists (e.g., Belmont High School in Massachusetts). Ellen Shumsky became a psychotherapist; her 2009 book, Portrait of a Decade 1968-1978, featured an introduction by lesbian historian Flavia Rando. Michela Griffo became an artist and was recently a featured Gay Pride Month speaker in Boston.

The authors of “The Woman-Identified Woman” were not as famous as celebrity feminists like Gloria Steinem, but even if they were completely unknown, their radical manifesto would continue to be influential, because it is routinely included in the curricula of Women’s Studies courses across the United States: Michigan State University, the University of Oregon, the University of Massachusetts, and the University of Minnesota, to name a few. It is not difficult to trace the influence of this early radicalism down to the present day, or to cite similarly influential treatises – e.g.,  “Lesbians in Revolt” by Charlotte Bunch (1972) and“Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence” by Adrienne Rich(1980) — commonly included in the syllabi of Women’s Studies programs. Any attempt to separate this kind of explicitly anti-male/anti-heterosexual ideology from “mainstream” feminism would require us to argue that the most eminent academics in the field of Women’s Studies (including the lesbian editors of the widely used textbook Feminist Frontiers) are not “mainstream.”

Once we go beyond simplistic sloganeering about “equality” and “choice” to examine feminism as political philosophy — the theoretical understanding to which Ph.D.s devote their academic careers — we discover a worldview in which men and women are assumed to be implacable antagonists, where males are oppressors and women are their victims, and where heterosexuality is specifically condemned as the means by which this male-dominated system operates.

 

more at

http://theothermccain.com/2014/07/14/sex-trouble-radical-feminism-and-the-long-shadow-of-the-lavender-menace/

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 474 other followers