Once again feminists are getting their girdles in a bunch over an ad that features an attractive woman. Protein World recently released an ad featuring a scantily clad and attractive female as the poster child to promote their line of weight loss products in advance of summer. This is, of course, the time when most women, fat or fit, go to great measures to ensure their bodies are in top shape to don bikinis on beaches around the world.
Being the petulant children they are, they responded in their typical fit-throwing fashion…again, taking to social media to voice their feelings on this “injussstyyssss!!”…again.
Perhaps yesterday’s discussion of academic feminism — “The Feminist-Industrial Complex: Academia and the Means of Production” — was one of those “TL:DR” experiences for you. Certainly, when I stretch it out to 3,600 words, with lengthy quotations from Queer Theory scholars, I understand that many readers will skip out after a few paragraphs.
The reader’s irritated impatience (“What’s the point here?”) got an unexpectedly quick answer from the latest headlines:
A students’ union has been accused of racism and sexism afterbanning white people and men from an event to promote equality.
Those studying at Goldsmiths, University of London, were invited to the students’ union meeting to discuss ‘diversifying the curriculum’.
But they were shocked when an organiser told white people and men ‘not to come’ as it was only open to BME [black and minority ethnic] women.
The union eventually backed down after a backlash from students, one of whom described the exclusive policy as ‘patronising beyond belief’.
The event, held on Wednesday, was organised by welfare and diversity officer Bahar Mustafa, who said she hoped to persuade academics to broaden courses to include more material relating to minority groups.
The Centre for Feminist Research (CFR) provides a coordinating hub for feminist work at Goldsmiths. In addition to organising seminars and conferences, the CFR offers a symbolic and intellectual home for the MA in Gender, Media and Culture, co-convened by the Departments of Media & Communications and Sociology. . . .
By ‘feminist research’ we include any work that is informed by an active engagement with feminist intellectual debates, and any research that investigates questions of power, inequality and difference including race, class, disability as well as gender and sexuality. . . .
Ideas Have Consequences, as Richard Weaver warned, and Cultural Marxism is an idea whose influence pervades academia. When the primary object of intellectual endeavor is “research that investigates questions of power, inequality and difference,” you can be sure that no one will be permitted to express skepticism and dissent about this unmistakably political agenda. Once doubt and opposition have been excluded, so that only True Believers are permitted to participate in the discussion, the university is no longer engaged in education, but rather indoctrination. The employment of intellectual totalitarians like Sara Ahmed in positions of authority is a signifier — a sort of dye marker — advertising the University of London’s hostility to freedom of thought.
Is anyone therefore surprised to discover that “diversity officer” Bahar Mustafa is a crypto-fascist thug?
Translation: “Disagreement is hate!”
The Feminist-Industrial Complex is based in academia where it is protected by “anti-discrimination” policies that have the effect of prohibiting dissent from feminist ideology. Inside the campus cocoon, particularly within Women’s Studies programs, students and faculty alike never have to encounter articulate disagreement with the fanatical certainty of their belief system:
Whether they are speaking of “male supremacy” or “sexism,” whether the immediate object of their indignation is “rape culture,” “harassment” or the “objectification” of women in media, always the fundamental premise of the feminist argument is this systemic, historical and universal oppression of women. What we might call the Patriarchal Thesis is really an extraordinary assertion, requiring us to believe that there are no natural differences between men and women. Rather, everything we consider to be “natural” in terms of human traits and behavior — the masculinity of males and the femininity of females — is socially constructed by the gender binaryof the heterosexual matrix.
From her podium in Dye Lecture Hall, Christina Hoff Sommers, an author, former philosophy professor and self-proclaimed “freedom feminist,” attempted, amid protesters and dissenting audience members, to persuade Oberlin students that feminism has become too radicalized. She was invited to campus on Monday night by the Oberlin College Republicans and Libertarians . . .
Before Sommers arrived at Dye Lecture Hall, protesters covered the venue with signs criticizing her beliefs and the event. One sign read “Support Survivors,” referring to survivors of sexualized violence. Another sign read “Rape Culture Hall of Fame” with the names of past and present members of OCRL listed below. . . .
Protesters and other students who opposed the event could not be reached for comment, but they described their opposition in a letter published in the Review last week.
“By bringing her to a college campus laden with trauma and sexualized violence and full of victims/survivors, OCRL is choosing to reinforce this climate of denial/ blame/shame that ultimately has real life consequences on the wellbeing of people who have experienced sexualized violence,” they wrote. “We could spend all of our time and energy explaining all of the ways she’s harmful. But why should we?”
What madness takes hold in the minds of overprivileged young people who expect to convince us that Oberlin College (annual tuition $48,682) is a “campus laden with trauma and sexualized violence”? Do they actuallybelieve this or, as we might instead suspect, has the Feminist-Industrial Complex fostered a climate in which it is forbidden to contradict these deliberate lies? Banishing opposition allows feminism’s anti-male/anti-heterosexual paranoia (“Fear and Loathing of the Penis”) to rage unchecked like a viral pandemic. Nick Mascari at Third Base Politics reported Sommers’ April 20 Oberlin lecture:
At the end, Sommers took questions. All but one were obviously hostile to her presence, and she took questions from an equal number of male and female attendees. A female student behind me exclaimed “Oh look! She called on a boy!” every single time she took a question from a male student, even though every one of the male questions she received was equally as hostile to her as the female questions.
After taking questions from three women in a row, she took the final question from a man. The student behind me again remarked “Oh look another question from a boy!”.
I politely asked her, “But weren’t the last three girls?”
She glared at me and said, “This is an event about FEMINISM!”
After her discussion with the male student was finished, the same student said to me, “It’s offensive that you said to me ‘Should she only call on pretty girls?’”
“That’s not what I said. I asked weren’t the last three questions from girls? You misunderstood, miss.”
She continued to accuse me. I didn’t bother to inform her that I was recording the speech and had our words on tape. It wouldn’t have mattered.
In 2015, “feminism” is a subject about which only women are allowed to speak. Feminism can never permit women to speak favorably of males, and the only thing males can contribute to feminism is silence.
Such is the totalitarian message of feminism, as it has been for more than four decades. “Women’s way of knowing” is rooted in what the 1969Redstockings Manifesto called women’s “personal experience, and our feelings about that experience,” which feminists insist is the only possible basis for analysis. There are no objective facts beyond women’s subjective feelings about their experiences, and therefore no feminist should listen to anything any man has to say about anything.
Universities now teach feminism as Science with a capital “S” and Truth with a capital “T.” No one can be allowed to deny Scientific Truth, which is whatever women say it is. Women have a monopoly on intelligence, knowledge and virtue because, feminists believe, everything men do is wrong and everything men say is false. (See “‘There Is No Spoon’: Radical Feminism and the Paranoid Matrix of Patriarchy.”)
These are the totalitarian conclusions to which feminism’s hateful logic leads, and nowhere is this more evident than at elite university campuses. Emma Sulkowicz became the most feminist at Columbia University (annual tuition $51,008) by accusing her former friend Paul Nungesser of rape. Once the facts were made public in Nungesser’s federal lawsuit against Columbia, however, it seemed otherwise: Sulkowicz is simply a spiteful liar motivated by a selfish desire for revenge. Nungesser didn’t want to date Sulkowicz, so she evidently plotted to get him expelled from Columbia. When that failed — every investigation cleared Nungesser of wrongdoing — Sulkowicz decided to make herself famous by ruining his reputation.
Sulkowicz spoke at an April 16 “Sexual Assault Awareness Month” event at Brown University, and quotes from her speech reveal her to be a young woman with some very strange ideas about truth:
“There does not exist a scientific way to prove non-consent. . . . When it comes to sexual violence, scientific proof is impossible. . . . If we use proof in rape cases, we fall into the patterns of rape deniers. . . . When a person claims that their theory is a science, they disqualify other types of knowledge. . . . Let’s change the question from ‘Did she consent that night?’ to ‘Did she have the power to consent that night?’ . . . This is not about physical strength. . . . This is about historical power. . . . Seeing is the origin of interpretation. Interpretation is the origin of knowing. . . . If truth is scientific, then art cannot access truth. But perhaps there is something beyond the truth. . . . When people assume I’m bringing the truth to light, they project their own idea of truth onto me. . . . When people engage in believing in me, they objectify me.”
There is no truth, there is only power — this is what feminism teaches. This is how feminism empowers liars. Unless we recover our concern for truth, unless we reject the hateful totalitarian ideology that can justify any lie if the lie serves the cause of “progress,” our society is utterly and irretrievably doomed. Deprived of our freedom to speak truth, we shall be enslaved by liars whose unscrupulous appetite for power is exceeded only by their cruelty and dishonesty.
“Truth is great and will prevail if left to herself . . . she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.”
— Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, 1786
Be afraid, America. Be very afraid.
Although the media has run with the narrative that “#GamerGate is about the harassment of women,” one look at who is pro- and anti-GamerGate reveals the truth.
Here are some truly vile people. Each of these claims are sourced. Click on the little blue text to learn more. (They are blue when I type the post but red on the screen. Whatever the case, “Trust but verify.” All of these claims are supported by the evidence.)
Jian Ghomeshi – Jian Ghomeshi is a former CBC radio host, Women’s Study major, and rapist. Although Ghomeshi hasn’t been convicted of rape, he has said before women do not lie about rape. It seems fitting to hold Mr. Ghomeshi to his words. Moreover, Ghomeshi’s case isn’t he-said-she-said. It’s more like he-said-8-shes-said, as 8 different women have come forward. (UPDATE: 15 women have come forward with accusations of rape and assault against anti-#GamerGate hero Ghomeshi.)
Arthur Chu – Arthur Chu either covered up a rape or refused to report one. In his words: “I have known nerdy male stalkers, and, yes, nerdy male rapists. I’ve known situations where I knew something was going on but didn’t say anything—because I didn’t want to stick my neck out, because some vile part of me thought that this kind of thing was normal.”
Chris Kluwe – Chris Kluwe said he knew of “underage girls” in a “compromising situation” with football players. He has refused to help these underage girls find justice.
Randi Harper – Randi Harper falsely accused me of making a rape threat. False accusations are never OK, right? Ms. Harper also has a criminal record, having been in jail multiple times. Harper has also admitted to having a drug problem and once had a Twitter meltdown after taking too many benzos. (Harper appears to have deleted those incriminating Tweets.)
Zoe Quinn – Zoe Quinn committed perjury in her quest to obtain an unconstitutional restraining order. Quinn also attempted to get Mike Cernovich Swatted. Quinn also emotionally abused her boyfriend, although that doesn’t count because men cannot ever be the victim of domestic violence or emotional abuse.
Margaret Pless – Margaret Pless is an unpaid Daily Kos intern. She posted my name, address, and full “dox” on the Internet. She also filed and incited others to file false police reports with the LAPD.
Hugo Schwyzer – Hugo Schwyzer attempted to murder his ex-girlfriend. Trivia: Anita Sarkeesian built Hugo’s webpage.
Anil Dash – Anil Dash advocates doxing, that is, he supports posting the names and addresses of his ideological opponents online in an effort to intimidate and harass them. Anil Dash also sent an Internet hate mob, who ultimately made rape and death threats, to attack a girl who made a bad joke on Twitter.
If #GamerGate is about the harassment of women, why are the bad guys opposing #GamerGate? Could they be projecting their own desires onto #GamerGate?
President Ma Ying-jeou is set to deliver a speech on April 29, on the 22nd anniversary of the first meeting between the Kuomintang (KMT) government and communist China, in which he will reaffirm the “1992 Consensus.”
Ma’s speech seeks to commemorate the meeting commonly referred to as the Koo-Wang meeting. The meeting, conducted from April 27 to 29 in 1993, was also the first political meeting and negotiation between the KMT and mainland China since the ruling party first retreated to Taiwan.
The event was held between then-Straits Exchange Foundation (海峽交流基金會) Chairman Koo Chen-fu (辜振甫) and former Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits (海峽兩岸關係協會) President Wang Daohan (汪道涵). Due to the sensitivity of cross-strait relations back then, the meeting was held in Singapore thanks to the help of the late Lee Kuan Yew (李光耀).
According to the Mainland Affairs Council (MAC, 大陸委員會), to commemorate the meeting, which established a milestone in cross-straits relations, Ma will visit the MAC on April 29. Using the opportunity, the president will reportedly deliver an important speech that reaffirms the “1992 Consensus,” an agreement stating that both Taiwan and mainland China define China in their own ways while both still recognize that there is only one China.
Ma will reportedly stress the importance of the consensus, so that cross-strait relations can continue their steady development and create beneficial opportunities for the nation, and also aim for Taiwan to receive recognition both domestically and internationally. Ma will also address the progress of cross-strait relations over the past seven years of his administration.
Ma’s Speech Will Be Delivered before Chu-Xi Meeting
While certain individuals have questioned the intentions of Ma delivering a speech on the topic prior to the upcoming meeting between KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) and China leader Xi Jinping (習近平), officials from the Taiwan Office of the President have stated that Chu has declared that he will conduct his talks based upon Taiwan’s definition of the “1992 Consensus.”
The officials said that Ma’ reaffirmation of the consensus will also show the nation the ruling party’s policies and intentions of peace. In contrast, Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Chairwoman Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) has yet to clarify the DPP’s policies regarding cross-straits relations, and should do so instead of displaying an unclear position, the officials said.