Stop attending #university : Columbia students claim Greek mythology needs a trigger warning

Annual tuition at Columbia is $51,000.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/05/14/columbia-students-claim-greek-mythology-needs-a-trigger-warning/

“Not far from the walls of Enna, there is a deep pool,” begins Ovid’s version of the rape of Persephone. “While [Persephone] was playing in this glade, and gathering violets or radiant lilies, while with girlish fondness she filled the folds of her gown, and her basket, trying to outdo her companions in her picking, [Pluto], almost in a moment, saw her, prized her, took her: so swift as this, is love.”

The Greek myth has been recounted for thousands of years in hundreds of languages, scores of countries and countless works of art. It’s considered a cultural touchstone for Western civilization: a parable about power, lust and grief.

Now, however, it could be getting a treatment it’s never had before: a trigger warning.

In an op-ed in the student newspaper, four Columbia University undergrads have called on the school to implement trigger warnings — alerts about potentially distressing material — even for classics like Greek mythology or Roman poetry.

“Ovid’s ‘Metamorphoses’ is a fixture of Lit Hum, but like so many texts in the Western canon, it contains triggering and offensive material that marginalizes student identities in the classroom,” wrote the four students, who are members of Columbia’s Multicultural Affairs Advisory Board. “These texts, wrought with histories and narratives of exclusion and oppression, can be difficult to read and discuss as a survivor, a person of color, or a student from a low-income background.”

The April 30 op-ed has stirred debate on campus and online.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/05/14/columbia-students-claim-greek-mythology-needs-a-trigger-warning/

KMT leaders anger party members, confuse opponents

http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/national/national-news/2015/05/17/436203/KMT-leaders.htm

TAIPEI, Taiwan — The recent decisions of Kuomintang (KMT) leaders not to seek the presidential office, which included party chairman Eric Chu’s (朱立倫) announcement yesterday, drew sharp critiques from some party members, while rivals of the KMT urged vigilance.

‘Why are you still chairman?’: KMT lawmaker

KMT Legislator Lin Yu-fang (林郁方), in a blistering attack, sought an apology from Chu for failing to give the public and the party a clear explanation. Lin said that if the party could not push a viable candidate and ended up losing the election in 2016, Chu and President Ma Ying-jeou “must take the greatest responsibility.”

Lin also lay blame on the president for not bringing Chu, Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平) and Vice President Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) together for discussions. He questioned whether utilizing the party’s primary regulations would ensure the selection of a candidate that could challenge Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Chairwoman of Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文).

Lin’s colleague, lawmaker Lu Chia-chen (盧嘉辰), an ally of Wang, said that the speaker’s decision not to register for the party primary solidified unity within the KMT.

KMT is ‘unfathomable’: Ko

Meanwhile, when asked about the recent inaction of KMT heavyweights Chu, Wang and Wu, Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) called the ruling party “unfathomable, with those on the outside unable to understand what they are doing.” With regard to his previous discussions with Wang over revising Taipei municipal laws, Ko remarked that “sometimes when a normal person encounters a strange organization, they themselves become strange.”

Tainan City Mayor William Lai (賴清德) reminded his fellow party members in the DPP to be vigilant of KMT actions, as the party, which has its own problems and “culture,” had overcome previous hardships before.

He said that just because the KMT cutoff period for the primaries has ended, does not preclude the party from drafting a candidate to face off against Tsai.

Lai indicated that the ruling party would try its best to ensure it could produce the most favorable candidate, and that such moves could unify the KMT.

He urged the opposition to promote the best policies in order to gain support from the population.

The most prestigious legal body in America is considering changing the Model Penal Code to criminalize holding your girlfriend’s hand on a date

http://www.cotwa.info/2015/05/the-most-prestigious-legal-body-in.html

The American Law Institute is the most important and most prestigious organization of legal scholars and prominent attorneys in the United States. The ALI drafts model laws that become statutes and Restatements of the Law that are widely cited as authority in judicial opinions.

Next week, the ALI is considering a proposed revision to the sexual assault provisions of the Model Penal Code that represents both a grotesque expansion of criminal law and an attempt to transform gender relations by punishing male conduct that has long been socially acceptable.

A group of very prominent legal scholars who have no political agenda are fighting back. They’ve written a stinging memorandum exposing the injustices in the proposed revision, That memorandum is set forth at the end of my post. I don’t have the intellectual firepower to add anything to it, but a few items that jumped out:

The proposed revision to the Model Penal Code would turn a young man on a date into a criminal if he timidly reaches out to hold his date’s hand without her prior positive agreement. (Because the proposed revision is written in gender neutral terms, theoretically, the young woman would be guilty if she initiated the contact, but in a society where gender roles are largely defined by pursuer and “hard to get,” and where male complaints of sexual assault are hardly ever reported and even less likely to be believed, this proposed law is intended to punish, and change, traditional male behavior.)

The revised law would also require “prior positive agreement” — akin to the murky and unjust “affirmative consent” that’s all the rage on college campuses. Passivity would not be a defense. By putting the burden on the male to prove that the female consented, the proposed law would compel the accused to waive his right not to testify.

The drafters of the proposed revision acknowledge that the proposed revision does not comport with current social norms. The idea seems to be that by punishing males for behavior that is now socially acceptable, eventually, males will conform to the new norms. Social engineering, at the expense of hapless young men.

I’ll quote one paragraph from the memo:

As is well known, the criminal law has an unfortunate history of excessive punishment in the name of protecting women especially when issues of race are present. . . . Equal Rights Advocates, Inc., In Support of Petitioner (acknowledging the history of rape prosecutions as both racist and sexist and rejecting “the notion that destruction of men’s lives served to protect and honor women”). As with other areas of criminal law, expanding the statutes in the ways set forth in the draft would fall particularly hard on individuals of color who are represented disproportionally at each stage of the criminal justice system.

I’ve only scratched the surface — read the memo below.

http://www.cotwa.info/2015/05/the-most-prestigious-legal-body-in.html

Al Qaeda’s Base at MIT

Published on May 10, 2015

Video shows that MIT’s Muslim chaplain Suheil Laher was also an Al Qaeda fundraiser.

MIT Muslim chaplain Suheil Laher used his leadership of the MIT Muslim Students Association as a vehicle for raising money for Al Qaeda causes around the world.

The video especially focuses on the Al Qaeda affiliate in Chechnya, which Laher and his associates lionized, even as MIT trusted him to be its Muslim students’ spiritual guide.

At the end of April, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology unveiled a permanent memorial to MIT Police Officer Sean Collier. Officer Collier was gunned down by the Boston Marathon bombers, Chechen refugees Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, three days after they blew up the Marathon.

It is painful to learn that in the late 1990s, there were students at MIT who helped recruit for the Chechen jihad and raised funds for Al Qaeda-affiliated groups operating in the Tsarnaevs’ homeland. It is even more painful that the man who led this fundraising effort was still on MIT’s staff when Officer Collier was gunned down.

Mac Miller Sued for Blatant Copyright Infringement

another ordinary day in the “murican shit music industry.

http://www.tmz.com/2015/03/19/mac-miller-song-rip-off-lawsuit-therapy-yesterday-aquarian-dream/

Mac Miller is not only livin’ the dream … he’s stolen it from the ’70s soul/funk band Aquarian Dream, which claims Mac ripped off the group’s signature song.

According to the lawsuit … the group’s singer Jacques Burvick claims Miller stole the tune, “Yesterday (was so nice today)” from their album “Fantasy” and blatantly used the track for “Therapy,” a song featured on Mac’s album, “Faces.”

Burvick says Miller’s rep knew they were busted because when he called them out, they admitted they tried to contact him for the okay, but when they couldn’t they did it anyway.

He says the song’s been downloaded over 700,000 times from Mac’s site OldJewish.com, among others … and wants a judge to force Mac to dole out at least $150k in damages.

Time to face reality.

Read more: http://www.tmz.com/2015/03/19/mac-miller-song-rip-off-lawsuit-therapy-yesterday-aquarian-dream/#ixzz3aJGmRIFE

#womenagainstfminism #letstalkmen Feminist Logic: Shut Up, Haters

http://theothermccain.com/2015/05/15/kate-spencer-feminist-feminism/

Did you know @KateSpencer has “self-inflicted body shame”? Yeah, your first thought is probably: Kate Who? But before we answer that question,let’s talk about her body shame:

Because I am thirty-three years old [she wrote in 2013], and I am still not comfortable in my own body. I haven’t been since I was eight and I sprouted breasts before everybody else . . . I wasn’t when I was twelve and towered over boys, slouching to bring myself down in inches. Nor was I at nineteen, skinny-dipping in the waters off of Long Island with my closest college friends. Even though I was drunk and stoned the shame was still able to find a way in . . .
I was not comfortable in my body in my twenties . . . And I wasn’t after I gave birth to my daughter at thirty-one . . .
The thing about self-inflicted body shame and self-loathing is that it seeps into other aspects of your life. It makes you feel unworthy in other situations . . . It’s a cycle of worthlessness that weaves its way into social interactions, sexual relationships, and random moments of your life.

You can read the whole thing, if you have a weird voyeuristic interest in watching someone publicly wallow in useless self-pity. But now let’s answer your question, Kate Who?

Kate Spencer has been writing and performing at the UCB Theatre since 2002. She is a member of the improv team Reuben Starship and co-host of the pop culture panel show Shut Up! I Hate You! Kate is a Senior Producer/Writer and on-air correspondent for VH1, where she spends a lot of time yapping on TV and the internet about pop culture and celebrity news. She’s interviewed everyone from George Clooney to Kristen Stewart to Fleetwood Mac, and one time Connie Britton called her “adorable” and she almost cried. Writing credits include: Newsweek/Daily Beast, Vulture, Hello Giggles, College Humor and The Huffington Post, who named Kate one of their “18 Funny Women You Should Be Following On Twitter.”

Oh, right: Women full of self-loathing are so hilarious. But it was on Twitter where — har-de-har-har — she posted this:

“People who refuse to believe women are harassed online sure do love to make their point by harassing women online.”

Non sequitur much? Does anyone deny the existence of online harassment? Certainly not I, having been harassed by the deranged cyberstalker Bill Schmalfeldt, among others. But this “harassment” meme has been exploited by feminists as part of an attempt to paint their critics as dangerously violent haters, thus to (a) elicit sympathy for feminists; (b) discredit all opposition to feminism as inspired by misogyny; and (c) try to get their critics banned from Twitter and/or subjected to criminal prosecution. Because feminism is a totalitarian ideology, it can only succeed by silencing opposition. This is what has happened in academia, where Title IX has been weaponized and deployed to prohibit criticism of feminist dogma. (Remember that Larry Summers was forced to resign as president of Harvard University after he publicly speculated about“innate differences” between men and women.) After more than two decades of increasingly rigid feminist hegemony in higher education, most college-educated people under 40 have been so thoroughly indoctrinated in the false premises of feminist ideology that not only can they not “think outside the box,” but they’ve never met anyone who could explain to them that there is a box.

Feminists now believe that only women are targeted by online harassment, and furthermore believe that any negative attention online is “harassment,” and SHUT UP, HATER! Having spent the past 17 months researching and writing about radical feminism — Sex Trouble, $11.69 in paperback, $1.99 in Kindle ebook — I’ve long since become accustomed to this reaction. Inside the Feminist Internet Bubble, everybody tells each other how awesomely clever they are, so that all any woman needs to do is to declare herself a feminist and she can immerse herself in a digital estrogen bath of self-affirmation. However, the minute anyone from outside this bubble calls attention to the absurdity or falsehood of feminist claims — ZOMG! You’re a hateful ignorant misogynist engaged in the Internet equivalent of rape!

The fool cannot stand to have her ideological folly held up to critical scrutiny and (perhaps you have noticed) the critic need not even offer a detailed analysis or a counter-theory in order to provoke feminists to shrieking panic and fury. Merely to quote what the feminist has said and expose it to readers outside the Feminist Internet Bubble is deemed hateful “harassment.” Why? Because the errors and falsehoods of feminism are generally self-evident, they inspire caustic mockery from any sane person with ordinary common sense. Nothing is more offensive to feminists than being mocked by ordinary people with common sense.

What we are not supposed to notice is the problematic premises asserted within what I call feminism’s Patriarchal Thesis:

  1. All women are victims of oppression;
  2. All men benefit from women’s oppression;
    therefore
  3. Whatever.

In other words, when your worldview begins with the assumption that normal human life is a system of injustice in which all women (collectively) are victimized by all men (collectively), then it is possible to justify almost anything you do as part of your effort to overthrow this oppressive system. Smash Patriarchy!

The Patriarchal Thesis absolves feminists of any obligation to meet the ordinary requirements of intelligent discourse. Logic is unnecessary and, as for facts, they are (a) whatever feminists say they are or (b) irrelevant if they do not confirm the Patriarchal Thesis. Believing themselves oppressed, and believing that men universally participate in the oppression of women, feminists thereby justify themselves in telling blatant lies and insulting men. Anyone who dares call notice to the hateful dishonesty of feminism is presumed to be a dimwit with bad motives because, of course, feminists are the moral and intellectual superiors of anyone who disagrees with them.

So, you may ask, exactly how oppressed is Kate Spencer? The crucible of her adolescent suffering was Dana Hall School (annual tuition $43,200), and she got her bachelor of arts degree in Women’s Studies from Bates College (annual tuition $47,030). In other words, she was a rich prep school kid who attended one of those money-no-object New England liberal arts colleges at which she never had to encounter any grubby commoners from places where people drive pickup trucks, listen to hillbilly music, believe in Jesus and vote Republican.

Kate Spencer‘s yearly prep school tuition bill was more than the median household income in New Mexico, Tennessee and seven other states, but she is oppressed because of her body shame. Don’t you dare doubt hervictimhood, you sexist bigot, because her suffering makes Kate Spenceryour superior. If you should express any objection to Kate Spencer’s insulting nonsense, why, that’s clearly illegal harassment!

Don’t ever bother hating Kate Spencer, you stupid Republican rednecks, because you could never hate her as much as she hates herself. And, of course, her self-hatred is your fault.